So, a writer of a true story would never make mistakes? And what mistakes are you referring to? I know a lot of "mistakes" have been reported that ended up not being mistakes at all.
I know there are strange things about the way the decipherment is worded, but you can't call that proof of any kind, either for or against. There is a pretty good chance that the newspaper edited the story, because that's what newspapers do with published works. Also, writers themselves edit their own works, so there's nothing necessarily strange about that. That means there were changes in the way things were worded, but it's not proof of anything, for or against. To know for sure what was in the writer's mind, we would have to be omniscient, and we are certainly not that.
Things missing means the story is false? There are records of unnamed parties during the time of Beale, in the right area. You have posted about some of them yourself. Does the fact that these parties are not named mean they didn't exist? No, they existed, and they remain unnamed. That just goes to show how that historically, we weren't as particular at record keeping as we are now. Also, much get's lost and destroyed with the passing of time.