http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vypgazlLu54
(part 2 of 3)At 1:00-2:00 Peter discusses the last time he saw Brittanee
5:23-6:09 Peter explains why he left Myrtle Beach early(mind you a different reason than is given by MBPD on the Disappeared show)
7:48-9:04 Peter discusses Brittanee talking about walking the strip at night alone. Points at 2:17 he talks about their relationship & 4:04 he does use current tense.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XdWEoEsoalQ
(part 3/3) 0:50-2:09 Chad & Peter discussing why he didn't insist on driving Brittanee to her hotel
4:26-6:40 discusses Peters lack of compassion. Mostly the lawyer talking but shows Peters body language. Lawyer mentions he was too nervous about what happened to Brittanee almost too much so to do the show.
My apologies for another submission but found that the show in full was only uploaded just yesterday. Your expertise is invaluable. Thank you!

Dear Eyes For Lies,

I'm a great admirer of your work, and would so appreciate it if you could take a look at a video that has me hypnotised each time I watch it, though I can't pinpoint exactly why. I'm afraid I wouldn't make it as even a wizard's bumbling apprentice - though I'd love to be.

I know you don't cover cold cases, but as this about Bob Harrod, whose case is about to air nationwide on ID TV's 'Disappeared', I thought I'd chance my luck. Dear Bob's case is bound to be at least a little hot once the show airs on Thursday, April 4th, 2013, 8pm and 11pm PT/ET.
http://investigation.discovery.com/tv-shows/disappeared/tv-schedule.htm

Bob Harrod was an eighty-one-year old newlywed millionaire, who had just wed his childhood sweetheart from 60 years before. He disappeared from his Placentia, California home two days before his new wife was due to return from a trip back home to Missouri, and just before he could add her to his accounts as he intended. Bob's son-in-law was working in Bob's home that day, but the time Bob disappeared is unknown. This was in 2009.

The video shows son-in-law's wife (Bob Harrod's youngest daughter, Julie Michaels) on the morning after Bob's disappearance. She had travelled to the home to change the sheets on Bob's bed, and agreed to a spur of the moment interview. Here it is - the daughter's interview starts around 0:57 - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4RSV7Lhqqus

Many thanks in advance for a brilliant site, even if you are not able to look at the video,

bobharrodmissing.com

http://www.today.com/entertainment/wade-robson-pedophile-michael-jackson-abused-me-7-years-1C9948163

In 2005, Wade Robson was the first defense witness at Michael Jackson's trial, where the singer was accused of molesting a 13-year-old cancer survivor. At the time, Robson was unequivocal: He was not sexually abused by the man known as the King of Pop. But eight years later, he has changed his tune. Wade Robson now states Michael Jackson abused him from ages 7 to 14.

"Robson is currently asking a probate court to allow him to file a late creditor's claim against the Jackson estate, now that the deadline has passed for creditors to file such claims. His claim comes as a case brought by Jackson's family against AEG Live, promoters of his final concert tour, has begun in civil court. "This is not a case of repressed memory," said Robson. "I have never forgotten one moment of what Michael did to me, but I was psychologically and emotionally completely unable and unwilling to understand that it was sexual abuse." During the first criminal investigation of Jackson in 1993 (when Robson was 11), Jackson would call him "every day" to "role play" and convince him that if anyone knew what they had done together, "both of us would go to jail for the rest of our lives."
He says there was no bribe money offered for him to lie on the stand -- nor, apparently, was it needed. "It was complete manipulation (by Jackson) and brainwashing," said Robson. "He would role play and train me for these (trial) scenarios."

Today, the 30-year-old choreographer told Matt Lauer exclusively that Jackson, who died in 2009, was "a pedophile and a child sexual abuser."

http://www.cnn.com/2013/05/13/us/ohio-castro-brothers/index.html This is a link to them talking to CNN. I don't know, Eyes, maybe it's the overall case but something about the brothers gives me the heebie-jeebies too. How does a guy keep three girls captive for ten years and his family doesn't know anything about this? I also understand the neighbors made numerous complaints to police which were ignored or overlooked. Girls were banging on the windows. If neighbors saw it, how did two men who went into the house, not hear a baby crying? Any of the girls? Something is WAY off here. What struck me as odd is that when asked about their thoughts their FIRST comment was that it destroyed their family's life....it was not until the interviewer asked them to describe their feelings for the kidnapped girls did they offer some semblance of consoling words but couldn't look at the camera. Struck me as guilt but if you truly don't know about something, you wouldn't feel guilty would you? I'd love to see your opinion. Thanks - Tara.

I saw this on Dr Phil from an episode originally aired in August 2012. Thomas's sister was found 6 years ago bound and suffocated in the home they lived in with their mother, Melody. The mother allowed the 12 year old son to be interrogated for 5-6 hours. The son denied involvement for the first two hours, then the camera was switched off for several hours while he was still being questioned, then he recited a confession when the camera came back on. The primary issue is that their were no signs of forced entry and the situation is presented as either the son killed his sister or the mother killed her.

There are video clips of the original interrogations 6 years ago of the mother and son (good audio, not great video), and from the Dr Phil show, with a brief pre-taped statement by the mother and much more content from the son actually appearing on the show.

Video snippets from the show are at http://www.drphil.com/shows/show/1843
The first video under "Interrogations" is short and relevant.
The 2nd video under "Interrogations" gets to the heart of things at about the 1 minute 40 second mark.
The 3rd video under "Interrogations" contains specific denials starting at 54 seconds.

The 1st video under "A Different Story" contains the confession and interactions between mother and son for part of the confession.
The 2nd video under "A Different Story" is retrospective, but at 2:05-2:25 he describes what happened when the police stopped recording prior to his confession.
The 3rd video under "A Different Story" has more info about being coerced to confess.

The 1st video under "No Answers" seems relevant in general for the first 1 minute 50 seconds, and includes the mother denying killing the daughter at 1 minute 40 seconds.

You said during Kercher trial you needed footage of Amanda Knox talking in English. I'd be interested to hear your thoughts on the ABC interview with Knox airing today. Thanks!

Video excerpt: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/italy/10028484/Amanda-Knox-I-want-to-grieve-for-Meredith-too.html

Text: (need to scroll down): http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/04/30/amanda-knox-interview-retrial-italy/2121871/

What I noticed from the textual excerpts is the extreme predominance of the "I" pronoun suggesting severe narcissism.

I also found it galling that Knox thinks it'd be "ideal" if the Kercher family were to show her Meredith's grave - How can she even imagine that the Kercher family in their loss would ever want to accompany the person accused of orchestrating their daughter's killing to the gravesite?

This is a case making waves over here in the UK: this couple, accused of the manslaughter of their six children, were found guilty today.

The case was suggested by another EforL reader last year, and one commenter noted the following:

"I would also like to know what Eyes makes of their press conference. The tip off for me was the way the policeman was staring at them. He had a "look". It can't be seen in all the videos available, it is one in which the camera must have been to the left of the table, looking across towards Mr Philpott and the officer."

In light of this, I thought the following news item might be of interest:
http://news.sky.com/story/1072972/philpott-under-suspicion-after-sham-photo

Press conference video clip here: http://youtu.be/jxq6Zvr8mPY