The Glade 4.0

It sucks that he has to go through the process on the taxpayers dime, but i'm sure he'll end up fine.

The result of a single incident should not be used as a justification for presuming guilt of a different person even if under similar circumstances. Innocent until proven guilty and all that...

Or the mom could have thanked the boy and taken her daughter back inside and let the boy and his mom continue shopping for shoes.

After many, many comments regarding the readability of this post, I am going to take out the information that I originally stated so that it will be more coherent. I will put my original comments, which are mistaken, at the bottom. I hope that helps.
I've posted a number of times on reddit that my dad is a police officer in Central Florida--I'm going to go ahead and come out and say that he works for the Orange County Sheriff's Office. After reading the really shocking Orlando Sentinel article yesterday, I gave him a call and asked him what the heck was going on. He was furious about the Mike Thomas article, and here's why:
Mike Thomas's article is full of a number of blatant lies, which are easily disproved by a viewing of the Burlington Coat Factory store's security video. Edwin came up to the little girl when she was by herself in the "toy" section, playing with toys. She was not crying, looking for her mother, or in any way visibly distressed. Edwin leans over, whispers into her ear, and leads her outside without touching her. He then walks her directly out of the store, without stopping to talk to his mother, or the store's front desk, or any other people in the store. He takes the little girl outside near where a group of people is leaving--the group of people that he claims he thought might have included her mother. He at no point makes any attempt to call out to the group of people, stop them, or go after them. He does not turn back to the store.
The girl's mother runs out of the store and grabs the child. (Note: Edwin does NOT bring the child back into the store. Watch the footage. It is a different person--the child's mother--who brings her back into the store.) A huge brouhaha then takes place. The police come, the mother is hysterical and insists on pressing charges. Edwin is taken into custody.
Edwin's mother lied to the police when she stated that her son told her he was looking for the girl's mother, as proven by the security footage.
Two days later, the mother of the little girl decided that she didn't want to press charges. However, the Sheriff's Office, including a number of officers and a sex crimes specialist, had become certain that Edwin was guilty of, at the very least, taking the little girl outside of the store without trying to let anyone know where he was taking her.
My father was told that Mike Thomas, who wrote the article, refused to talk to the superior officer of the officer who made the arrest. He also refused to talk to the sex crimes specialist. Furthermore, he chose to sensationalize the story by purposefully stating incorrect facts.
So, you can take all of this with a grain of salt, of course. I have no proof personally of any of this, just my dad's word--and YOU have no proof that I'm not just making all of this up. However, if you check out my comment history, you can see that I've repeatedly referred to my dad being a police officer in Central Florida. If you go way back, you can see that all of the information that I provided about the SeaWorld trainer death was eventually shown to be correct by the media a day or so later.
Anyway, I fully expect to get downvoted for this, and I imagine few people will ever even see it... but I wanted to provide the non-sensationalized side of the story, from the police officers who handled the case.
My dad told me a few other things that make me personally convinced that Edwin has some real issues and, at the very least, needs serious counseling. I can't state what these facts are, but I hope they come out in the media eventually.
EDIT: Here's a YouTube video of a local news station. It shows some clips from the security footage, for you to judge for yourself. Thanks to Bluko for the video. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vNNcYUluJH8 And here's another video, with just the raw surveillance footage. Thanks to monkeiboi for digging up this one. http://www.wftv.com/video/23871075/index.html And here's the 911 call from the store loss prevention person. Go and upvote tellahoohooo for providing this info. http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/loc ... 73.mp3file
EDIT2: Just to clarify, the stuff that my dad told me that I am choosing not to share here is ALL public record. It's just stuff that's not being discussed in the media yet, and probably no one but police/school officials/family members know. He probably shouldn't have told me because it's personal about this kid, but it's also not stuff that is not accessible to the general public.
EDIT3: (Whoa, I need to stop editing.) I specifically told my dad I would be posting this on reddit. (Well, I told him "an internet site.") I asked what would be okay to post and what wouldn't be, and I didn't post anything that he asked me not to post. Another clarification.
EDIT4: Changed some wording that I was uncomfortable with (specifically "a little teaser"). No facts were removed.
EDIT5: So, I sent this to my dad, just to make sure I had everything right, and he had me make a few changes, as noted below.
First mistake: I originally stated that Edwin was holding her hand. I was mistaken.
Second mistake: I originally stated that Edwin took the little girl in the opposite direction of the group of people that was leaving the store. Actually, he did not go either toward or away from them.
Third mistake: Edwin was not physically restrained before the police arrived, though the store security was keeping an eye on him.
Fourth mistake: I included a paragraph about what the Voice Stress Analysis test on Edwin showed. While, I stated that this was not admissible in court, I thought it was still evidence. However, my dad asked me to remove that because he does not consider it to be real evidence. Sorry, I had never heard of VSA before this discussion.
Fifth mistake: My dad does not know for certain that Mike Thomas refused to talk to the superior officer or someone from sex crimes. He wants to clarify that was just what he was told.
Sorry for all of the edits, guys. I obviously should have sent this to my dad first and made sure I had every fact straight, rather than listening to his story, and then trying to just remember it all accurately. My mistake.

watching the video's and the listening to the 911 tapes....

the mothers story does not match what the video says it does.

Watching the video, the kid does not call the child over to him. The kid walked away from the mother prior to the issue beginning.

Additionally, the 14 year old looks at the child and points off to the side when they first walk outside.

And how the hell is it even remotely important to the story that the reporter did not talk to the officials as mentioned in that article?

LK's post doesn't say the 14-year-old called the child over. It says he approached the child when she was by herself - i.e. already had wandered away from her mother. I don't see how pointing off to the side changes anything, either.

It's important to the story that the reporter didn't bother to talk to any of the officials because that would have given him a balanced story.

Someone here is pulling shenanigans, and I won't give odds yet as to who it is - but the original reporter definitely is if they're writing stories like this but not bothering to interview relevant people. The article even says "commentary" at the top - but he's trying to have it both ways, reporting a story and commentating on it at the same time.

Yes, yes the article that LK provides DOES say the 14 year old called the child over. Right at the beginning of the 911 audio link.

Did you bother listening to the 911 file that was provided in the article? The 911 file has someone from the store telling the 911 dispatcher "She was at the cash register, her child was right next to her. The guy was walking out of the store and called the child over to him, and walked out of the store. And she ran after them."

Additionally the security footage shows a minute and a half to two between the kid walking out side and allegedly beginning to look for the child's mother and the mother walking outside, in a manner consistent of watching her child walk out the door with someone. Additionally, if she knew her daughter was walking away with someone... and was watching as implied by the 911 call: wouldn't it be reasonable to at least tell your child "stay here". FFS... if she were paying attention to her child at all, her kid would not have been able to wander off to the toy area while the mother was checking out.

The account as provided to the 911 dispatcher is not what the security footage shows. If you had used all of the multimedia available at the provided article you would have heard/seen this for yourself.

This places doubt on the reliability of the story as does all of the "My Dad" stuff in the article Kate provided.

The poster of the article in question (nopt LK, but whoever posted this on reddit) did not form his own opinion, he went to his father and essentially had his father tell him what was the truth.

His article is a horrible piece of biased garbage as is evident from the multiple edits to remove information or to "update the facts". It was obviously written assuming the 14 year olds guilt. I will accept that pointing off in one direction is meaningless. And if you want to talk about shenanigans... how the **** is some anonymous jack off on the net who does not even associate his name with the piece he posted any less bullshit than a real reporter in a legitimate news source?

There is not enough evidence to say the boy is or is not guilty. Either way, it is supposed to be innocent until proven guilty and not the other way around.

This really does stink of a mother not paying attention, and trying to cover up her shitty parenting. But again, not enough evidence

Obviously. however, no one here is on a jury for the boy. Maybe I didn't make it clear enough, but I never said he was guilty. He may not be. However, I don't see any reason to hop on the bandwagon of "ZOMG RIDICULOUS!!"

I understand you did not imply that, but the article posted by LK does in fact jump into the "he's guilty" line of thought.

I realize that. The original article jumps right into "he's innocent!!"

Being a dumbass is not a crime. Especially if you're 14.

Being a dumbass is not a crime. Especially if you're 14.

Being a dumbass is not a crime. Especially if you're 14.