As far as I can see the scientist behind this article merely says that "we can't be certain", not that "he was definitely white" (nor even probably). Even the original article merely said that the man was "probably" black -- although many media reports turned that into "definitely".
But I don't see any lying here. Ironically, you seem to be misrepresenting this yourself.
In the long run it hardly matters, or at least it should hardly matter. There should be no triumph in this man being white, only in the truth being understood.