Tunnel Vision: Is It a Symptom of Blind Ambition?

While doing some research on the internet I came across a story that I found a little hard to comprehend. We all think our justice system is there to protect us and see that we receive what we deserve whether it is for good or bad but is justice always right? In my option justice is suppose to be blind until all the facts are presented and I mean all the facts not just those that someone chooses to give, to receive a fair and just decision. This did not happen in the case I came across and it happens quite a few times. Too many for the suffering that takes place when justice fails and tunnel vision takes over.

It is said that the case of Jeffery Deskovic wasn’t just blind but was badly warped with “Tunnel vision”. At least that is the opinion of the four member panel that reviewed the tragic events that took place in this poor boys life. Jeffrey was convicted in 1989 for rape and murder he didn’t commit. This is believed to have happened by the tunnel vision developed by the investigators. Tunnel vision is the primary cause of wrong convictions and it certainly showed in this case.

In 1989 Jeffery was going to high school and so was Angela Correa. Jeffery was 16 and Angela was 15.  Angela was raped and murdered. She was beaten and strangled. Jeffery was a child that was considered a loner, like some of the unfortunate misfits, but Jeffery was also psychologically venerable. It was determined from the beginning that Jeffery fit the profile of a murderer. This is when tunnel vision came into play and this was not just with the police but it went up the ladder to the District Attorney, the defense lawyers and it is thought the judge that ruled over the case. They had their suspect but no proof and this is where inconvenient truths came into play.

The evidence showed that the DNA semen didn’t match, but the prosecution suggested that Angela had consensual sex previous to being murdered. The three strands of hair that was found on Angela’s body did not belong to Jeffery either but this was explained that it may have belonged to the medical examiner. Nobody asked the medical examiner for a sample of his hair to prove the theory otherwise. It was never considered that this hair may have belonged to the real killer.