Final answer:
The two pieces of evidence that support the idea of rats being exonerated are conflicting witness descriptions and lack of physical evidence.
Step-by-step explanation:
The two pieces of evidence that best support the idea that rats could be exonerated are:
- Several witnesses described the burglars in ways that conflicted with the appearance of both Sacco and Vanzetti. This suggests that someone else may have committed the crime.
- Police could not link either man's fingerprints to the crime, and neither was found in possession of the $15,000 that had been stolen. This lack of physical evidence directly challenges their guilt.