I agree with you reservedly, but it is good of you to point it out. I really don't believe that news institutions (for the most part) go out seeking to press a specific point of view, and will generally present evidence like this regardless of the outcome. First of all, news organizations are more biased toward the sensational than anything else, including over liberal or conservative. Related: This would have been news everyone wanted to read regardless of the outcome. Second, the Sentinel is accused of being liberal by conservatives, and conservative by liberals, so they are probably doing a better job than MSNBC or Fox news of truly being 'fair and balanced'. Third, the guy's firm would have gotten the free advertising regardless of his conclusions: This is a hot issue on both sides. Finally, would the analysts stake their reputations on conclusions that they felt were likely to be different than the official ones?
That said, reading the way it is written, it looks like the Orlando Sentinel requested the analysis. The effect of what the paper has done here is to force the hand of prosecutors. They will be forced (and should be forced) to have their own expert analysis done. They may have already been planning to, but the newspaper has made certain that it will now happen.
And in the end, you are right that this is not the conclusion of the official investigation. I concede that we should all bear these things in mind when looking at the 'evidence'.