To me, there are two issues. One is whether the author did a good job with his research comparing the actual bone measurements to her photos. The other is whether the remains are actually hers.
Based on the author's credentials and my reading of the story, it sounds to me that the bone measurements reported would fit her. Do any of you disagree with this part? It would put you in a position of challenging a complicated expert opinion with your arm-chair diagnostics.
However, the second part is much more contested. Just because the bones fit doesn't mean they are hers. The author addresses this, too, but having not read anything else about this like the report someone mentioned here that she may not have even been in the area, I'm not ready to believe they are "probably" hers. Still, I'm not ready to dismiss the idea, either.
Those of you who like looking at studies, data, and statistical analysis may enjoy reading it if you haven't already. It's free!