Is the Lucy fossil really what scientists claim it is?
Per the comments, the actual paper seems pretty like a pretty straightforward operation of normal science:


Somebody noticed something that looked off about one of the bones and decided they'd look into it more carefully.
They found that yes, that bone appears to have been an accidental inclusion, and in fact the rest of the skeleton makes more sense without it.
The original conclusions are not weakened in any way, but are in fact strengthened by cleaning up a minor mistake.


It might have come out otherwise, but in this case, as in most cases, careful criticism and examination of scientific work ends up making the whole enterprise more coherent.  

It's frankly not even very interesting, scientifically, which is probably why you're finding discussion of it mostly on creationist sites.  Note also that the creationist article linked uses sloppy language like "proof" and "part ape, part human" that tend to indicate a massive lack of understanding of both science in general and evolution in particular.