Even a rock-solid "here's how it happened," (h/t the fictitious Detective Monk) that a jury has hears, judges guilty, and the court pronounces a stiff sentence, is reasonably called "a theory." If facts that truly contradict a theory become known, then it may not be called a theory. It's that simple.
There are conspiracies that have taken place and investigators that have figured out what happened, often getting indictments, prosecutions, guilty verdicts, and sentences, etc. A true narrative of such a thing would still be properly called a "conspiracy theory."
I may hold to "theories,"--as do well all about even some of the more mundane aspects of our lives--but I would give up any appropriate part if contradictory facts were to come to light. Would you? Or would you see a falsehood even be used as a basis for malicious prosecution if you had let it become your job?
Look at the newly-presented facts shown on this thread. There has been rife deception in this case. If you choose to work on behalf those that have done the deceiving, we right would ask, "What are you up to?"
As rodguy911 nicely excerpted above, "How many things are wrong with that scenario? And given how many of those wrong things there are, why should we believe her death is just exactly what those plane occupants said about it?
Although a group in 1967 started doing a very good job of making the term "conspiracy theories" a pejorative and a millstone around any neck that would hold to them, neither I, you, nor any other thinking person need bother gloat that a true narrative about an actual conspiracy has temporarily evaded justice.
Your comment that their statements are “mighty convenient recollection!” indicates to me you give less weight then the brothers even though they predate his statement.
Their statement about Fuddy’s heart condition is neither convenient nor inconvenient. At this point there is zero evidence that they were not being factual. They must be given the exact same weight as the brother’s.