I think the skeleton would have to be studied by experts in the field of spinal curvature. An archaeologist may be able to notice a spinal deformity but I doubt he/she could make a medical diagnosis on the matter. Plus of course experts could just as easily disagree.
The term used at the press conference was of course severe scoliosis. Was this term used as a way to enhance the dig's findings at the press conference? Or was it a true reflection of expert analysis?
I've always been prepared to admit Richard was not a hunch back, though I was pretty adamant he had a deformity. Quite how severe was always the big question.
On the first two points I completely agree. Anything we say at this stage is just speculative.
With regards to Richard: I don't think it is improbable that he did have some spinal deformity. I do, however, find it interesting that contemporary sources don't really mention it, which then makes me think that it wasn't as acute as the word 'severe' suggests. Scoliosis is also progressive, so I would assume that it would have been less noticeable/less debilitating when he was younger, than it would have been at the time he died.