Perhaps so. But I wouldn't underestimate how quickly the "public memory" could be revived by a lengthy trial in the Hatfill v FBI case. And, if there's going to be a trial, its start date is not far off. (The depositions show exactly what happened to make Dr. Hatfill a "person of interest", so it shouldn't be "news," but it WILL be major news because very so few people have seen the depositions.)
And, if the lawsuit is settled (which is a REAL possibility), that could be a BIG news story, too. It should raise all sorts of questions. A lot of people in the media and in scientific fields went out on a limb to point their fingers at Dr. Hatfill. They're not going to just shut up.
Unfortunately, the general public will probably compare it to the Richard Jewell case, even though there is no similarity whatsoever. And I'm concerned that the media will promote that inaccurate version instead of looking for the real source behind Dr. Hatfill becoming a "person of interest" and a household name.
However, unlike the Wen Ho Lee case, I don't think it's going to get major highlights in the press if it happens. The media liked Wen Ho Lee, because he fit their stereotypical profile of a victim. They don't like Steven Hatfill, because he fits their stereotypical profile of a bad guy.
Let's not forget that Hatfill already reached a settlement with Conde Nast/Vanity Fair (who went the furthest in basically proclaiming him guilty), and best as I can tell, that went almost completely unnoticed by the mainstream media.