What is going on here?
This is Creighton’s modal con: a deceptive use of modal verbs to slip in assertions which he knows would not pass muster as simple declarations. Were they given as statements of verifiable fact, the need to support them with evidence would be that much more obvious.
We have already seen an example.
“There was no mistake, and he [Hill] painted the inscription exactly as it would have been given to him.”
What is this odd sentence supposed to mean? The simple declaration “would have been” this:
“There was no mistake, and he painted the inscription exactly as it was given to him.”
Why does Creighton not write this? Because he knows very well that he has no evidence at all on what (if anything) was given to Hill. He could not back up the assertion. He is merely expressing a supposition. He is making it up.
In summary: Creighton’s screed is riddled with supposition, deceptively presented.