the direction that McDowell testified the assailant fled. Other evidence also confirmed that Hayward’s blood was found in the victim’s pockets and on the car. The discrepancies in McDowell’s testimony did not prove that he failed to observe or could not recall the most important points about which he testified. Hayward is correct that the trial court relied on McDowell’s testimony that Des-tefano said “I don’t have no more” in finding that the murder occurred during a robbery for pecuniary gain. However, that aspect of McDowell’s testimony never wavered. Although McDowell was older, in poor health, and possibly confused about some aspects of the event he witnessed, that does not provide a basis to disqualify him. See, e.g., Belcher v. Johnson, 834 So.2d 422, 422-23 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003) (<HOLDING>). Even insanity of a witness has been found to
holding that an elderly woman with dementia is not disqualified as a witness simply for those reasons holding that an order was final for these identical reasons holding that a forensic accountant is an expert witness not a lay witness holding that juror was not automatically disqualified under beckett because of the jurors friendship with a law enforcement officer who was a key witness for the stale holding outofcourt statements relating to reasons for investigation are not admissible where the reasons for the investigation are not at issue