You are wrong.
I've supplied evidence from five different and credible secondary sources. If you don't believe that secondary source material is evidence, then again you are wrong.
What is interesting is that you are more interested in unjustly attacking the sources listed and defending the acts of the British government than finding material that contradicts what these five authors/historians have found out.
And if you believe that secondary material proves nothing, then you must also believe that this forum is useless and those that choose to write about the period are not producing anything useful. If that is so, then that idea is worse than ludicrous.