There's an update on the lifting process on the site of this NY-based 24-hour news channel,
NY1 | 24 Hour Local News | Top Stories | Jet Slowly Lifted From Icy Hudson River
The report also says there's to be a further NTSB presser on Saturday night at 8 pm EST, with "descriptions of testimony" from the captain. There are also some details of the very brief exchange with ATC, and some comments on the crash from the flight attendents. (Perhaps these were published elsewhere - I hadn't seen them.) I'm not familiar with this media outlet, so I'm not vouching for its accuracy.
To answer an earlier poster's question about why the press can't get it right about whether one or both engines had detached: apart from the usual inaccuracies which mar many media reports (and which annoy us all), the reason for the discrepancy is that accounts given by the NTSB and other salvage workers have changed. Some media outlets
attribute almost everything to a spokesperson, which can be slow and clumsy. Others will take apparently uncontested statements and report them as a fact - if the statements are wrong, it is the outlet's reputation which suffers.
One version reported during the day was that the second engine was still attached after the ditching, but had later separated. This could easily have been misinterpretated later - just as posters here "simplify" what they have heard, and get it wrong.
I'm curious about the effect which one engine remaining attached would have on the way the aircraft floated after impact. Would it not make it "list", as it is now doing? Yet it was level in the water at first, allowing people to stand on both wings. Could the "list" be caused by partly-empty fuel tanks filling up on one side? Could water get in through the venting system, or would ruptured fuel lines allow it in?