You are at this point naturally dubious, I would imagine. It's your job to question people's veracity as far as their age, and sometimes it takes a while for you to twig to it, but when something strikes your suspicion, you investigate. Therefore, you are training yourself by nature of the job to be doubtful of people's claims. I would hazard to guess that you tend to doubt everything a newcomer says or does until they've proven something about themselves. In that respect, your suspicious reactions have become reflexive. That's the aspect I'm talking about. I'm not saying it's not deserved, or not a good thing, but it doesn't always pay off. I'm sure you were reflexively suspicious of me, did the investigation, and have ceased being quite so suspicious of me by this point. But it was there at the first, is the thing.
See, to me, it strikes me that for this kind of site, for the kind of interests she has, missedstations might choose a shot like that for the reasons she stated; it's the one she has on hand that shows off her corset in the way she likes best. But then I'm more likely to take people at their word until they've given me reason to suspect, and the fact that it's an attractive picture does not in itself constitute reason, in my mind.
I'm more wondering why you would voice a doubt, unless you've already done research, in which case I would wonder why you're bothering to be coy about it. From what I've seen, if you've got proof that someone's not what they say they are, you call them out on it. Withholding information is not the same as lying, though. So if she's lying, you'd publish your findings, but if she's not, then I don't know why you're calling this into question in the first place. Do you just not know? Is the questioning and voicing a doubt without presenting your evidence (as I've seen you do elsewhere) more of a fishing expedition? Because otherwise it just seems mean.