Um.....no offense, but did YOU actually read the article?
While not pro-Zimmerman, it most certainly is NOT anti-Zimmerman. It is decidedly neutral, and throws the Slantinel's voice recognition stance in doubt.
FYI
I was flying on Monday morning, and I saw one of the “experts” that the Sentinel had worked with being interviewed on CNN. He kept talking about the image he had formed in “his mind’s eye” of the facts of the case and how that had informed his opinion that it was not Zimmerman screaming. In other words - he went in with a pre-determined notion that it was Trayvon and then he concluded that it was Trayvon. Big surprise. The CNN info-chick didn’t even question him on it.
Yeah, I sure as hell read it, and it clearly states that their conclusion (for what THAT’S worth, mind you) was that there was only about a 48% chance that the screams heard on the 911 tape were Zimmerman’s....and it goes on to point out the obvious: how that casts serious doubt on Zimmerman’s self-defense claims.
Now.....what did YOU two glean from the same article? Forget the “oh well we can’t be sure due to .......” nonsense they always throw in after the grenade pin has been pulled. Tell me exactly what you took away from this piece.