There is not evidence vs. There is not any evidence vs. There is no evidence vs. There isn't evidence

A Washington Post article titled "Justice Dept. concludes that no, Michael Brown’s hands probably were not up" has this:

According to the report, here is what investigators believe most likely happened on Aug. 9.

There is not evidence to suggest Darren Wilson’s use of force was unreasonable

...

Michael Brown likely did reach into Wilson’s vehicle and grab the officer

...

Michael Brown did double back toward Darren Wilson

...

(Boldface as shown in the original.)

The writer lists these boldfaced sentences as important points, so I believe extra care must have been taken to makes these sentences grammatically correct.

And my question is about the first boldfaced sentence: Is it both grammatical and natural to use "not" as is, instead of "no" or "not any"?

Or is this a typo?

Also, please check to see if the contracted form (There isn't evidence) is any better than the original.

In my experience, 'not' is a common typographical error for 'no'. In this case, either will work to produce the same meaning or communicate the same intent, so an editor would not question the word choice. It is common that people will say 'there isn't any evidence' to be more emphatic, but the additional word 'any' is not necessary to convey the meaning of an absence of evidence. Using the non-contracted form is more formal, authoritarian, and concrete, whereas the contracted form comes off as informal as to be an opinion rather than an undisputed fact. When writing propaganda, it is important to express dogma with firm resolution or finality so as to discourage doubt.