Again; it is not possible to completely exclude the potential of them being innocent. That is literally beyond the wit of man.

The words you’re using have rules. I don’t mean this in an adversarial way, but you are wrong.
Irrefutable evidence does not prove the claim, it just proves that you can’t refute the evidence. Video evidence can be misleading or fake. DNA evidence needs context to prove anything.
Anyway, like I say, these things have rules. The only things in the entire human domain that can be positively proved are mathematical statements. This is why gravity remains a theory, even after 350 years. One single counterexample disproves it. There are numerous examples of this happening in the context of the death penalty, where a jury was so convinced of guilt they condemned someone who was later executed, then, later still, new information emerged which proved them to be innocent.
Just by the pure first-principles of logic, the death sentence is a bad idea.

Those cute sentient animals would eat us too if they were sapient. And we tasted good.

Thank you, digital workers, for your dutiful work which allows me to not log in to Reddit, Facebook, Instagram or Twitter and still stay in the loop.
Your payment shall be in upvotes and well-written comments.
o7

We make the following assumptions:

1. We are not in a privileged or special place in the universe.
   1a. Therefore the universe should look the same from where we are as from almost anywhere else.
2. Supernovae emit a very reliable amount of light.
   2a. Therefore we can accurately tell how far away a supernova is by its light signature.
3. We can tell how far away distant galaxies are when a supernova goes off in them.

Therefore, we can map out and count the galaxies in our local area, and, using assumption 1, we know that the number of galaxies in our volume of space is the same as in every volume of space. Multiply the one by the other and you’ve got your answer.