He later said he didn't know who was screaming, though in the original interview he said the person on the ground was screaming.
Those exact words apply to W-6. Is his testimony 'tainted'?
If Austin insisted he could be sure the man he saw was the person screaming, it wouldn't be very credible in the light of W-6's recantation. Austin was further away than W-6.
He later said the cries sounded like a child's
He allegedly said that to a journalist. (The actual word was 'kid'.) I don't know of any record of him saying that to an LE investigator.
but originally said nothing about that.
That aspect is a bit worse. He described the person on the ground, who he assumed to be the screamer, as a 'man'. (W-18 also said she saw 'two men' who 'looked like they were wrestling', and 'then I heard the man saying "Help! Help!"' None of the 911 callers said, on their calls, that they heard a juvenile voice.)
Will lay opinions about the age of the person screaming be admissible? Is that a settled issue, or might one side or the other have grounds to contest it?
Voices deepen at puberty, so distinguishing adults from teenagers by voice alone seems problematical to me. I was told I had a pretty deep voice when I was fourteen.
We don't know what Austin will say in court. He might testify that he has never expressed an opinion about the age of the screamer. If all the prosecution has to contest that is a single journalist, I'm not sure the judge/jury will be impressed. The journalist might be impeachable.
In your prior comment, you dismiss Cheryl Brown's quoted statement
I didn't dismiss it. I said it was possible the Miami Herald got the quote wrong. Do you disagree? Do you consider the reporting of the Miami Herald to be divinely inspired scripture?
The reason I made a point of what I assumed to be the human fallibility of the Miami Herald staff, was to give Cheryl Brown the benefit of the doubt. The alleged quote was a direct contradiction of what she said on The Nancy Grace Show on March 29.
The statement attributed to Cheryl Brown was not that Austin once said the garment was red, and later retracted that. It was that he never said the garment was red. You debunked that yourself. I'm puzzled that you're touting it now.
Furthermore, she and the family attorney said much the same thing (33/284) to O'Steen after the interview with the mother and son.
The interview summary doesn't say that anyone denied that Austin ever said the garment was red.