Not all peer-review is bunk, but when it comes to the controversial topics and fields, much skepticism is required, yes.

But point taken. How about some well thought out speculation instead?

If you want some devil's advocate to respond to:

I could see a scenario where it was planned to have a Trump supporter killed as part of the capitol storming, so that they could then say Trump got some of his own people killed through his "inflammatory rhetoric".

Indeed, I predict that her death might be framed this way during his impeachment trial. Already the officer who shot her has gotten off scot free, he did the "right" thing it seems. So then, who is to blame for her death? Her? but she's a woman who was reacting to Trumps "inflammatory rhetoric", so no, it must be Trump who is to blame.

So what's the contrary angle? Why would Trump have her death faked? If it was to make the Capitol critters look bad, he failed pretty spectacularly.

My guess is, since it was Pence's officer who did the shooting, he was involved, and ordered it to help get rid of Trump.