have planted simpson's blood at the crime scene when he returned later that evening to simpson's home to deliver his blood reference vial to dennis fung but the crime scene is actually at nicole brown's home. scheck then suggested that another police officer could have "sprinkled simpson's blood at the crime scene" but the prosecution demonstrated that the blood was photographed being there prior to simpson's blood being drawn by the nurse. bundy back gate scheck claimed that one drop of blood on the back gate at nicole brown's bundy drive home was planted by the police. as evidence, they offered the blood contained edta, a preservative found in purple top tubes used for blood draws, it was collected several weeks later on july 3, rather than on june 13, and 1.5 ml of simpson's donated reference blood was unaccounted for. the officer who planted it was not named by the defense but vannatter was implied. the prosecution countered that the edta levels found in the blood was consistent with that found normally in unpreserved blood and not even close to the levels found in blood preserved in a purple top tube. a different photograph of the gate on june 13 shows the blood was already there and the claim of some of simpson's reference blood missing from the vial was refuted during rebuttal by the nurse who drew it who clarified he believes he only drew the amount the records show was used for testing. simpson's ford bronco scheck implied that vannatter could have planted the victims blood in the bronco when he returned to simpson's home but the bronco had been impounded prior to his arrival and wasn't even there. scheck then claimed that the results from the second bronco collection were unreliable because the car had been burglarized (not true) but the dna matches are the same before and afterwards, disproving that claim. scheck then produced two witnesses who claimed there was no blood in the impounded bronco implying it was planted afterwards but the prosecution produced photographs of the blood in the impounded bronco, disproving that claim. simpson's bedroom sock scheck claimed that blood found on a sock in simpson's bed was planted there by detective vannatter. as evidence, they offered that vannatter did have possession of nicole brown's autopsy blood briefly prior to booking it into evidence and the blood contained edta, a preservative found in the reference vial of nicole brown autopsy blood. the claim was refuted by the defense's own witness, fbi special agent roger martz who showed the level of edta in that blood drop is consistent with unpreserved blood and not even close to the levels that would be seen in blood from a purple top tube. the prosecution also countered that no blood was ever claimed to be missing from nicole brown's reference vial and that the records show detective vannatter booked the reference vials from the victims immediately into evidence right after receiving it from deputy medical examiner dr. irwin golden. dr. cotton conclusively refuted that claim by showing the blood in the reference vial is substantially more degraded than the blood on the sock, proving it did not come from that vial. rockingham glove f. lee bailey claimed that the bloody glove found at simpson's rockingham estate was planted by detective mark fuhrman who said he found it there. no physical or eyewitness evidence ever surfaced supporting that claim. the only reason given at trial for believing that it was planted was of fuhrman having perjured himself when claiming he had never used the word "nigger" in the last ten years. the glove contained dna from simpson and both victims, and since the blood did not contain edta, the possibility of it coming from the reference vials was ruled out. thus, if fuhrman planted the glove at rockingham from the crime scene, simpson's blood would have to have been at the crime scene, contradicting his claim of being home on the night of the murders. fuhrman's dna was also not found on the glove, thus supporting his claim that he did not plant it. the prosecution argued that fuhrman did not plant the glove because he did not know if simpson had an airtight alibi that night. la county deputy district attorney vincent bugliosi concurred with the prosecutor's argument, noting as well that fuhrman did not know whose blood was on it at the time either. acquittal and aftermath all of the jurors were initially confident in their reasonable doubt about the dna evidence. all maintain they understood the dna evidence presented at trial and defended their decision in books and interviews. however, their confidence began eroding following events subsequent to the trial and acquittal of o. j. simpson. civil trial a separate jury found simpson to be liable for the murders in a civil trial one year after being acquitted in the criminal trial. though civil liability has a lower burden of proof than guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, it is very rare for someone to be found liable for a crime after being acquitted for committing the crime. at the civil trial, dr. cotton showed that the dna in nicole brown's reference vial was more degraded than her dna on the sock from simpson's bedroom, thus proving it could not have come from that vial, as the defense alleged. also at this trial, john gerdes admitted simpson's blood was at the crime scene and the blood of both brown and ron goldman was in the bronco, neither of which could be explained by cross-contamination. publications and productions several jurors co-wrote and published madam foreman: a rush to judgement? (1995), defending their reasonable doubt about the dna evidence. critics panned the book, saying it is filled with so many factual inaccuracies, illogical arguments, and spelling errors that it reinforced, not refuted, the criticism that the jury did not understand the dna evidence that was presented. prosecutor christopher darden published in contempt (1996) and reiterated the claim that the jury did not understand the dna evidence. he claimed that their relative lack of education played a role in their confusion, noting that 10 did not have college degrees and 1 even lacking a high school diploma. he also noted that multiple news outlets reported the jury not paying attention during the dna section of the trial. defense attorney robert shapiro published the search for justice (1996), in which he states that he does not believe the police planted blood evidence against simpson as suggested at trial. lead defense attorney johnnie cochran published journey to justice (1996), writing that simpson is a victim of detectives lange, vannatter, and fuhrman's police fraud to plant blood evidence against him. critics panned the book as "self-aggrandizement," noting how cochran says that simpson is innocent because police planted some but not all the blood evidence against him. in o.j. unmasked: the trial, the truth and the media (1996), m.l rantala writes that the jurors' inability to justify their reasonable doubt about all the dna evidence reinforced the criticism they did not understand it and that is why media reenactments of the trial, such as the people v. o.j simpson: american crime story and o.j: made in american, continue to depict them that way. prosecutor marcia clark published without a doubt (1997) after the trial, stating that the jurors did not understand the dna evidence because they were unfamiliar with it and were deliberately confused by the defense about it. she pointed out that, during jury selection, the defense had specifically tried to seat jurors who were unfamiliar with dna evidence. detective mark fuhrman published murder in brentwood (1997), defending himself against the claim he planted blood evidence. he notes that he never had custody of any of the reference blood, and denies planting the bloody glove at simpson's home because no one knew his blood was on it until 2 days later when the labs tested it. he also revealed that, contrary to popular belief, he did want to testify again after the tapes revealed he used racial slurs in the past to explain those comments but the prosecution refused to redirect him. he stated his taking the 5th amendment was at the suggestion of his attorney. detectives tom lange and philip vannatter published evidence dismissed: the inside story of the police investigation of o.j. simpson (1997), defending themselves against corruption allegation. they write that no blood from the reference vials of either nicole brown or ron goldman was ever said to be missing, and dennis fung had testified that the vial of simpson's blood delivered to him by vannatter at rockingham was still sealed in its envelope. the book states that fuhrman did not plant the rockingham glove and simpson's blood on the glove did not come from the reference vial either because it didn't contain edta. vincent bugliosi published outrage: the five reasons why o. j. simpson got away with murder (1997), in which he says that the jury had dismissed the blood evidence by jury deliberations, noting that they did not even ask to review it prior to rendering their verdict. he concurs with other critics that the jury did not understand the blood evidence because of a combination of factors, including unfamiliarity with it, relative lack of education, and deliberate confusion by the defense about its reliability. he partially faults judge ito for the confusion for allowing the defense expert to conflate contamination mistakes made in other cases with this one. defense forensic dna expert dr. henry lee published blood evidence: how dna is revolutionizing the way we solve crimes (2003), writing that the cross-contamination theory was implausible, as well as maintaining his lack of belief in the claim that police planting evidence. he also opines that the jury may not have understood the dna evidence, just as other critics have also suggested. prosecutor george clarke published justice and science: trials and triumphs of dna evidence (2007), stating that the defense abandoned their claim of the dna evidence being unreliable after the fuhrman tapes were discovered, because they believed they had a motive for the evidence being planted and that would explain the results too. csi: crime scene investigation premiered in 2000 and ran for 15 seasons popularizing forensic science with the public, especially the reliability of dna testing. post-trial interviews until his death in 2021, defense attorney f. lee bailey was the only member of the defense that still advocated for simpson's innocence. defense attorney robert kardashian stated during an interview afterwards that he had doubts about simpson's innocence specifically because of the blood evidence and later severed ties with him and testified for the goldmans during the civil trial. defense attorney alan dershowitz stated during an interview after the trial that the defense had concluded they could not raise reasonable doubt about all of the dna evidence and instead attempted to elicit a cherry picking response from the jury whereby they would discard all of the dna evidence against simpson if they could show some of it was planted by the police. he said they did prove vannatter planted nicole brown's blood on the sock despite dr. robin cotton debunking that claim at the civil trial. while declining to say whether or not he thinks simpson is innocent, defense attorney carl douglas stated that the racial gap concerning simpson's guilt is shrinking for 2 reasons: first, simpson's celebrity status has faded among african americans; secondly, there is greater acceptance of dna evidence as reliable. he also notes that research shows african-american distrust of the police remains unchanged. defense attorney barry scheck stated in an interview that he and peter neufeld only attacked the way the dna evidence had been collected and preserved but not the reliability of the results. scheck specifically said the outcome of the trial "muddied" the premise of the innocence project. neither scheck or neufeld believe the police planted blood evidence against simpson as suggested at trial. neither of their publications after the trial mention the simpson case. defense attorney gerald uelmen stated the defense's strategy was to raise reasonable doubt about the dna evidence based on how it was collected and preserved at the crime scene, not the results obtained at the lab. defense forensic dna expert ed blake revealed after