No flips for you!
No. Absolutely not. If you have the people directly involved making clear statements about what they did, this is strong evidence. We convict people on weaker statements regularly. Add to this an adversarial legal fight where it is strongly in one side's interest to claim your premise and they explicitly do not, that's mountainous evidence. You must not only have rock solid evidence against, but must also impeach the witness, niether of which you have. You have some conjecture with cherry picked evidence. This is apparent in how you demand a higher standard of evidence that cuts against you while hand waving away questions of yours.The testimony of the people directly involved in a dispute is typically given less weight than other evidence; consider a typical criminal case, for example.
Again, I have no dog in this fight but I can appreciate a well argued position. Yours is very poorly supported by the evidence you've provided, and you cannot address the strongest evidence against without a further assumption that such evidence isn't strong. You can't hand wave it away and be tajen seriously, you have to actually show it to be incorrect. Instead, you've started from, "Let's assume Dave and Gary lied consistently for years, even in legal proceedings. What can we gather if that's so." You beg the question, sir.