Why do you say the police were caught "red-handed" planting OJ's blood? I don't recall any such evidence. I do recall silly innuendo based on the fact that Vanatter had his blood in a vial.
Did they also plant Ron and Nicole's blood in OJ's car?
Then you missed the testimony of Dr. Henry Lee who said that analysis of the blood that purported O.J. was at the crime scene, found on the gate, contained preservatives like what you find in blood that had been injected into a test tube.
The prosecution had no answer for this. The defense also got the detectives to concede that, after taking O.J.'s blood sample, they returned to the scene of the crime (against correct police procedures) before bringing the sample to the lab. The defense introduced, and were not refuted, that the police a) took the sample b) returned to the crime scene and that c) the blood later collected from the gate had preservatives in them.
Most people don't bleed preservatives. Therefore, it's tainted evidence much like CBS's forged ANG documents.
If I'm sitting on that jury, that's enough reasonable doubt for me. With no confession, no murder weapon, no eyewitnesses, no fingerprints. The blood was necessary to put O.J. at the scene and the LAPD had to fake it, which should make you ask "what else did they fake?". Blood on the socks? Blood in the Bronco?
Drops on the Rockingham driveway that lead to the front door, ignoring that, by their own theory, O.J. went from the Bronco, bleeding from his hand, went to the back alley to dispose the glove (though no blood drops were found back there) and then started bleeding again while entering the house. You just have drops following the driveway from the Bronco straight to the house!
I realize a lot of people are so emotional about this that they will not think it through but there was not sufficient credible evidence brought forward during the criminal trial to convict this man beyond a reasonable doubt. That is, unless you were convinced he was guilty and then worked backwards. Remember "innocent until proven guilty"? The prosecution failed to prove guilt and the lengths they went to plant evidence only made their entire case weaker than it already was.
I don't have to be a black person to look at it that way. As I said, I think he did it and the shoes were the key. But the shoes were not part of the criminal case, only the civil case.