1) No. Jesus was assumed into Heaven, bodily. No-one alleges the bones to be Jesus’. However, I did misunderstand the criticism of the translation, but the original criticism is still valid. The ossuary says, “James, son of Joseph, brother of Jesus.” The article leads people to suppose what is meant is “James, [who is the] son of Joseph, [and who also is] brother of Jesus.” However, what would have been understood in the original would be “James, [who is the] son of Joseph, [who in turn is the] brother of Jesus.” If the former was meant, it would have read, “James, brother of Jesus *and* son of Joseph.”
2) The trial in no way vindicated the assertion that the scratchings were authentic. The jury couldn’t possibly know whether the scratchings were made by Golan or some previous con man. The judge explicitly asserted that this acquittal “does not mean that the inscription on the ossuary is authentic or that it was written 2,000 years ago.” Since the article is written, the finding that the ossuary is a forgery has been challenged by some non-crackpots, such as Dr. Wolfgang Krumbein, but the weight of scholarly opinion remains that it is a forgery. However, again, even if it is not a forgery, it is hardly proof that James is the brother of Jesus, as pointed out in objection #1. Even if it did, you should be aware that Eastern Christianity holds that Mary was perpetually virgin, but that Joseph had other sons by a previous wife (in which case, one could plausibly read it to guess that Joseph was the brother of Jesus, and James was thus the nephew of Jesus; among Jesus’ “brothers” in the bible is a “Joses.”)
... and of course, the bible DOES say “James, the brother of Jesus.” Western Catholics have insisted for many centuries that “brother” refers more generally to kinfolk, including cousins.
Greek Catholics and the Orthodox argue for the perfection of the Greek and insist that if the Greek says, “adelphos,” the original text must have meant “brothers,” even though there was no Hebrew word for “cousin.” The translators, they insist, would have known to use Xathelphos, even though they could not know that solely from any Hebrew text. IN fact, the Greek versions of the birth of Mary supposes Joseph to be an elderly widower. The tradition of Joseph as elderly survives in some Western tradition, even though it would be strange for him to be marrying for the first time at an old age.