Quote Originally Posted by Pinholemaster View Post
And how many angels dance on the head of a pin? And are they doing the Twist or a Waltz?
Here's a hypothetical case. You were walking late at night, and some bugger made a mugger out of himself. He left with your wallet and your sense of safety. Consider now the following two possible course of events.

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?