Why is an eyewitness account considered less reliable compared to physical evidence?

An eyewitness account is considered less reliable compared to physical evidence primarily due to the nature of human memory. Human memory is not infallible; it can be influenced by various factors such as stress, emotions, and the passage of time, which can lead to inaccuracies in what a witness recalls. Additionally, memories can be distorted by subsequent information or interactions, making them susceptible to bias.

In contrast, physical evidence, such as DNA, fingerprints, and other tangible items, provides an objective basis that can be scientifically analyzed and verified. This evidence is not influenced by personal perception or recollection issues, which contributes to its greater reliability in the investigative process. Understanding the limitations of human memory is crucial in forensic science, as it underlines the importance of corroborating eyewitness accounts with solid physical evidence to establish the truth in criminal cases.