So what is this really based on? Seems circumstantial at best. There has to be more concrete evidence than this. If I was a family member, I'd be unimpressed.
It's new news. They'd been pilloried for possibly keeping info to themselves, now they're copping it for relaying new information.
By definition, unless / until the airframe / parts thereof / recorders (ie. "concrete evidence") are found, any conclusion will be circumstantial.
Is it too much to expect that British satellite company Inmarsat and/or the UK's Air Accident Investigation Branch (AAIB) now make themselves available for a news conference to explain exactly what data they have, how they analyzed it and what conclusions they reached?
So far we only have third-hand reports of what Inmarsat has or doesn't have.
AAIB and Inmarsat are not running the investigation. News should be released by those who are. What you're saying is, for example, that any metallurgist who concludes something after looking at a bit of twisted metal, should jump on Twitbook and start babbling about it, possibly confusing everyone in the process. Quite frankly AMSA and Tony Abbott should arguably keep quiet (although their comments have been guarded).