*Wow*
As an aside, I hadn't read that thread, but I was just thinking the other day that there are going to be young people right now who've only known a world where bitcoin exists--and if that girl's story is indeed true, she's one of them.
To the topic at hand, I don't think a negative is warranted though I think a neutral is essential, just as it would be for any other account discovered to have changed hands.
Let's now set rules for all old accounts that can be sold but must honestly admit to the death of their relatives, and after that, it is naive to believe that the account is not lying.
I'm not exactly sure what you're saying here, but if your point is to be skeptical of claims like the one we're talking about, I think we all should. A hacker or account buyer could easily use an excuse like this one--but I'm not sure about this girl. Something about the post just seems genuine to me, and I don't see any reason why someone who hacked or bought the account would need to write something like that. Sure, there's a negative trust from 2017, but I skimmed through the reference thread and didn't see anything that jumped out at me.
Anyway like I said, neutral trust is appropriate here and for any case like it, not a neg.