You just said it "appears" they conspired with her. Unless you suspect that somebody is lying, you don't give then the third degree. There are two sides to every story. Right now she already looks like a liar. The NYT looks like a victim of her lies. Who may not have run a background check.

If somebody had been telling you that they were adopted and later you saw them with some people that fit the earlier description given you then you might assume that these were the people she had been talking about.  For sure if you asked later and she herself said yes it was.

You claim the NYT was bias blinded. If true, she didn't have to show them much and if they wanted to believe her story then everything around her became more convincing that it was real. All she had to do was play along and answer the questions the way they needed to hear it. All they had to do was keep believing. As far as outside conspirators are concerned they may never have actually knowingly been part of her alleged plot. Remember that you are still reading another story tellers version in the news and not court testimony. We'll see. Keep us updated. :)