edited: I should have included more context to the second quote. My point being, the one who misidentified it on the first first round due to circumstantial evidence, still is not sure and is basing this new claim on also circumstantial evidence. After that last quote, they go on to say, "If we assume", which is just a sign they are searching for a fit.
It is better circumstantial evidence, and, for reasons given in the article, it is unlikely that anything definitive will be found, at least unless the debris are examined in situ.
To say you should have included more context is something of an understatement. By removing the information between the two quotes and swapping them around, you removed all the context needed to come to a reasonable conclusion.
In retrospect I should have been more careful the order, as well as context, although I expect those commenting to have read the article too, and the full quote would have be far too long to be included, imho.
