Even if you had literal witnesses it wouldn't be 'definitive' evidence, I'm not sure why you're using this argument as if you can't make claims about things you didn't directly observe.
Well I don't even think there's enough evidence here to win a civil trial where the bar is lower than criminal. Don't act like you have the answer while citing sources that literally say your claim might not be what happened. Y'all just want to jump to a conclusion.
You realise you don't have to agree with everything in a source you cite, right?
Why would I ignore the parts of a cited source they don't agree with or that's counter to the claim being made? You don't think that's important?