The witness was allegedly suffering from advanced glaucoma at the time of the crime, severely limiting visibility. Surveillance video from the scene also revealed the eyewitness was much farther away than he initially claimed to be, according to the Exoneration Project.
Removed by mod
The article says that the witness said that he was much closer than the cameras on site showed he actually was.
Also in the article, there’s the issue that CPD told others to identify Harris or else. One of them already recanted their statements.
So what does it means “Legally blind” if he can drive and read? What’s the threshold to be considered legally blind?
Found this definition;
You can be legally blind with tunnel vision, i.e. you can see directly ahead, but nothing out of the corner of your eye.
That sound dangerous when doing something other than reading. Even walking could be a problem without having peripheral view.
Removed by mod
Ok, I understand. Thank you for your explanation. I live in Europe and I’m not sure we have something like that here. I think that if you can’t see very well you can either drive with glasses or be denied to drive.
Majority of eyewitness testimony is inaccurate. That alone should never have been enough to convict, much less from someone with legitimately terrible eyesight.
Removed by mod
I haven’t fact checked this, but I have a friend who claims he is legally blind without his glasses, but can see fine with his glasses.