Above statement is 100% accurate... and completely and utterly stupid and most definitely not worth publishing.
Indeed you are accurate as well in saying that we do not know why they visited her house for sure. But publishing an article that adds a "maybe not" to the claimed series of events brings us no closer to finding that out.
In fact, your example touches on a larger point. An article like that about God would, if presented logically, have to conclude that there is insufficient evidence that God exists- all we have to go on are people's individual written accounts, and no hard evidence.
Compare that to this situation... where all we have is an individual written account and no hard evidence.
Fact 1) Woman claims she was visited by some type of joint task terrorist police force
Fact 2) She claims that they asked her husband about pressure cookers and whether they knew how to make a bomb with it
Fact 3) She claims to have searched for pressure cookers on Google earlier
Let's just try and verify if those facts are indeed true and/or related before hand-waving the whole thing off as a "Maybe not!" because there is no "hard evidence".. okay?
Anyway. You've just stated that we have three entirely unverified facts. How is "maybe, maybe not" the incorrect response to that?
Accurate. The word you are looking for is accurate. At the current time, we don't know why they visited her house for sure.
We don't know that she was asked about pressure cookers because she googled them. That's inference, not fact.