Situation 1: luckily, a neighbour is a peeping tom photographer and he had his Exakta with a 200mm f4.5 lens loaded with Delta 3200 at the time of the incident. Because he lives on the third floor and has a plaster cast, he was only able to take a photo of your mugger from the side.
Situation 2: luckily, you have a good memory. At the police station (wow, they actually have time to take care of your case!) you sit down with the guy in charge of composite pictures. Based on your memories and his craft, he reconstructs the face of your mugger.
Which of the two evidences should have the better value in court and why? Is it the photography because it is "inherently true" or is the composite portrait because it has much more details that can actually identify the mugger?