I gave up trying to categorise you ages ago.
In this thread, you seem to take the line that you can't ever categorically know anything unless you were there, which is technically true, however that observation isn't useful in any criminal trial or similar investigation because the investigator or the jury that has to reach a verdict wasn't there.
Instead, over many centuries, we have developed levels of certainty such as "reasonable suspicion", "on the balance of probabilities" and "beyond reasonable doubt". These definitions stick, because in the vast majority of cases they work.
Thus, when someone says it is beyond reasonable doubt that Diana was killed by a drunk driver in an accident prompted by voracious photographers, they mean that the evidence overwhelmingly supports that conclusion, and mountains of prior experience says it is safe to draw such a conclusion based on the type, and quantity of evidence presented.
I suspect you're probably just enjoying the word play and enjoying thinking about the concept of certainty in philosophical terms, while also having a fine old time making people think you believe there was a conspiracy, when I suspect you actually believe it was an accident, the same as most of us here do.