The phrase "confirm or deny" is used when someone knows the truth of a matter but might be inclined to lie about it (deny it). In the case of data that might indicate the truth of an allegation, the phrase you are looking for is "prove or disprove" or perhaps "validate or invalidate" or "support or discredit". Data itself cannot "deny" anything.

How is disprove any less strong than deny? If anything, it would be affirm or negate an alibi.

He was just correcting your terminology. Legal English isn't English.

In legal terminology to "prove" something doesn't "indicate the truth" about something? sorry, maybe I'm confused, I guess I don't know legal lingo or am misunderstanding.

Its just your precise wording, not the gist of your comment.

Data cannot 'deny' something. Ask your coffee cup what the weather is and all you get back is silence :)

Is it not considered evidence acquired illegally and unusable in court? Considering most people think that most of this information does not qualify as probable cause per the Fourth Amendment...

The exclusionary rule is there to protect the defendant, and the defendant can ignore/waive its application.

Even if it could be applied without regard to whether the defendant objected, it has been gutted in recent decades by our radical right-wing Supreme Court, who think illegally-obtained evidence is just dandy so long as excluding it from court proceedings wouldn't actually change the government's behavior in collecting it.

My understanding is that such evidence is only thrown out of court when challenged by opposing counsel. For example, a prosecutor puts forth some evidence, then the defence lawyer objects, and the judge rules on if it is admissible. If the defence doesn't object...

That requires admission of illegality

I don't know why but this put this all in a whole extra sharp perspective for me.