Final answer:
True, interviews and physical evidence are two essential sources of information in a hit and run investigation. Eyewitness accounts can be subject to suggestibility, hence physical evidence provides a more objective basis for piecing together events of the crime.
Step-by-step explanation:
Interviews and physical evidence are indeed two sources of information in a hit and run investigation. This is true. Law enforcement officials and courts rely on various forms of evidence when prosecuting criminal cases. While interviews, including eyewitness testimonies, provide personal accounts of the events, they can sometimes be unreliable due to suggestibility and the misinformation effect.
This is why additional forms of evidence, such as physical evidence from the crime scene, are crucial. Physical evidence is tangible and can corroborate or refute eyewitness accounts, making it a key component in investigations. It is also used in many different fields, such as chemistry and physics, where direct observations are not always possible.
Experts collect evidence to piece together a theory or explanation of events, much like detectives use it to reconstruct a crime. Additionally, to reduce the likelihood of misidentification, modifications in the questioning of witnesses and the administration of police lineups are recommended.