The Prosecution is correct in "12 Angry Men"

The problem is that my case lies in rebuttals. 

There was so much wrong with the prosecution's assumptions. Firstly, the knife could be taken by another after the boy dropped it, the woman who 'saw it happen' across the street has doctor-prescribed long-distance vision loss (so she's short-sighted) and literally everything about the event makes no sense. The boy didn't have anything to do with it.

If you say his alibi is fake based on no one saying they saw him there why will you trust a woman with severe short-sightedness to be able to look across her street and identify who did a murder?! She had apparently been woken up from sleep by the screams, so why would she have immediately worn her glasses to look across the street? I think, as did the Jury in the end, that her pride didn't let her admit she has too flawed a range of eyesight to see who did the murder.

Another thing that's strange is that a scream was heard by the murder but a train was also running right by the house at that time. A witness cannot hear three screams or the boy's reply to them, let alone an angry argument, if a train is blasting right beside the house at full speed.

That's it, that's all I have to say. I will let Pro try to discredit it and then slam this home with sources in the next Round.

The old man couldn't hear things he describes above the decibels of a train that runs on a railway right next to the apartment block. He probably heard something like a scream etc, and his brain put 2 and 2 together. He should be officially tested for alzheimer's before we trust his memory, let alone capacity to hear and trustworthiness.

I’d implore my opponent to source his points so I can CTRL-F to locate his claim
 
The Knife
 
He Lost the Knife
 
"There was so much wrong with the prosecution's assumptions. Firstly, the knife could be taken by another after the boy dropped it"
 
P.S-I have opted to underline my opponents statements. If some text is bolded and has quotes it’s a quote from the movie.
 
Now, this is quite a wild assumption I'd say. My opponent proposed that the knife the boy claimed to drop was found by another and used in the murder(which is quite convenient considering the knife used to kill the boy's father was left in his chest, so he'd need a way to explain why he no longer had the knife), but any way, it is quite unlikely that another person stole the boy's knife that he dropped and used that knife to stab the owners father. Remember, the boy has a motive to kill his father while a random guy who found the knife presumably doesn't. The motive being the father punching the boy on the night of the murder.
 

 

 
The Woman's Eye Sight
 
“the woman who 'saw it happen' across the street has doctor-prescribed long-distance vision loss”
 
It is never established in the movies dialogue that the woman wore glasses, it was merely an inference made by juror #9 because he saw 2 deep impressions on her nose, that he thought would only result from eye glasses. But the woman even testified with her glasses off, why would she go to court as an eye witness to a murder and not wear her glasses presuming she's short sighted as you claim. Also, even at night the prosecution proved you could look through an el train and see what was happening on the other side.(Source)
 
“If you say his alibi is fake based on no one saying they saw him there why will you trust a woman with severe short-sightedness to be able to look across her street and identify who did a murder”
 
As mentioned before, she wasn’t short sighted.
 
The woman has known the boy all of his life, I'd say it's fair to say she could 1, recognize his voice and 2, recognize his face.(Source)
 
“She had apparently been woken up from sleep by the screams, so why would she have immediately worn her glasses to look across the street”
 
The movies states the following--”Here's a woman who's lying in bed. She can't sleep. She's dyin' with the heat. She looks out the window, and right across the street she sees the kid stick the knife into his father. The time is 12.10 on the nose. Everything fits.”
 
So she was well awake and most likely looked outside casually and saw the murder, I frankly am not convinced the woman wears glasses, she didn’t even wear
 

 
But the Man Couldn’t Have heard the killing.
 
The man was a floor below the boy and his father, we’re talking about an elevated train a good distance away, the man is in his room not outside, there are walls separating the man and the el tracks which would muffle the noise pollution. I don’t get why he couldn’t have heard the boy say, “I’m gunna kill ya” when he
 
Conclusion

• The man could’ve easily heard the conversation, and saw the boy.
  
• The knife was certainly not picked up after it was dropped.
  
• The woman wasn’t short sighted.
  

I await a response.