I see I should have worded my statement better. The article say the eye witness ID'd him, not someone like him. But he obviously saw someone like him and though

I see I should have worded my statement better. The article say the eye witness ID'd him, not someone like him. But he obviously saw someone like him and thought it was him since it was not. But we only know that after the fact. It is enough, with all the rest added, to charge someone. Luckily we have due process in the US, and it worked exactly as it was meant too and the charges were dismissed, standard operating procedure. All the fanfare is because the show decided to exploit the story for a documentary where they wrongly claim they are the reason for the charges being dismissed.