4.2.12 WC: 191694 were mirror image round stains on all four surfaces, which means that the blood flowed through the flattened sock while it was not being worn. Had it been splattered while being worn, there would have been mirror image stains only on two surfaces—the outside and the inside of the part that was splattered, but not on the two other surfaces which would have been blocked by the wearer’s leg. The jurors were convinced by this and other evidence that the police had dripped the blood from vials onto the sock to make it appear that the sock Simpson was wearing during the murders had been splattered with blood at the crime scene. This led the jurors to believe that the police were trying to frame Simpson for a murder they honestly believed he had committed, and that the veracity of their testimony and other evidence could not be trusted. They acquitted Simpson of killings for which a subsequent civil jury (with different lawyers) found him financially liable. My expertise in the science of disproving murder had been at the center of my earlier famous case involving Claus Von Bulow. Von Bulow’s original trial lawyers were not able effectively to challenge the prosecution’s evidence that Sonny Von Bulow’s coma was caused by an injection of insulin, that high levels of insulin were found in Sonny’s blood, that traces of insulin were found on a needle in a bag that belonged to her husband Claus, and that a vial of injectable insulin had been found in Claus’ bag by Sonny’s maid. On appeal, and in a motion for new trial based on newly discovered evidence, we disproved each of these pillars of the prosecution case. We demonstrated through our own experts that Sonny’s coma was caused by the oral ingestion of barbiturates, rather than by an injection of insulin; that there were no high levels of insulin in Sonny’s blood; that the alleged traces of insulin on the needle was the result of a false positive reading; and that the maid could not have seen a vial of insul