History is not science. There will never be absolute certainty because human language is always open to interpretation. Even when the evidence is clear, the his

History is not science. There will never be absolute certainty because human language is always open to interpretation. Even when the evidence is clear, the historiography that relates to that evidence is, again, open to interpretation. The interpretation of terms and situations changes over time, and facts can later be interpreted differently (even maliciously). Not even witness statements in a court case, of which there were several in the present case with hundreds of pages of legal reporting, are immune to interpretation. So yes, I can't prove to you that it happened that way because all of my sources are open to interpretation. There are enough other events in history that are considered sufficiently certain, and yet continue to be disputed by certain people for various motives. Some states even consider it necessary to criminalize the questioning of certain historical facts for this reason.