Myanmar embassy seeking defence witnesses for Koh Tao accused
Myanmar Eleven

BANGKOK: -- The Myanmar Embassy is trying to find defence witnesses for the two Myanmar nationals accused of the murder of two Britons on Koh Tao in September, the embassy's investigation team told the press in Yangon yesterday.

The team said they were looking for witnesses not just in Thailand, but also among Myanmar migrant workers who returned home recently.

At present, there are more than 60 defence witnesses, but some of them are afraid of coming forward as they fear for their lives, the team said.

"To get more defence witnesses, we are trying to contact the leaders of migrant workers, committee members who are helping Myanmar migrant workers in Thailand and migrant workers who love their country. We have quite a few witnesses now, but the number may rise to over 100 or 200 in the next few days," Htoo Chit, a member of the investigation team, said.

Suspects Zaw Lin and Win Zaw Tun pleaded not guilty at the first court hearing. The second hearing is scheduled for December 26.

Source: http://www.nationmultimedia.com/national/Myanmar-embassy-seeking-defence-witnesses-for-Koh--30250281.html

-- The Nation 2014-12-20

http://www.irrawaddy.org/burma/koh-tao-suspects-innocent-govt-investigation-team.html

I had faith when the defence said they had 40 witnesses.

But 200? ?? What would 200 people have witnessed at 5 o'clock in the morning. Surely the defense cannot be. We know the boys are innocent and kind, and could never commit this crime.

2 important things to do.

Write a letter of request to the British coroner.

Write a letter of complaint to the justice department. To get better access to the accused.

Find Sean and ship him in.

We have witnesses... But they won't testify?

If they cannot testify about the crime itself I doubt the judges will allow many to testify at all.

200 hundred witnesses ?

Even the most ardent CTs are going to have trouble defending this one.

I'm sorry but the defence is doing their clients no favours with some of their tactics and statements.

200 hundred witnesses ?

Even the most ardent CTs are going to have trouble defending this one.

I'm sorry but the defence is doing their clients no favours with some of their tactics and statements.

AFAK they did not say 200 witnesses that can confirm the B2 did not do the crime.

But a lot of witnesses who can make public the extortion practice of the BIB in KT

and that the Burmese had to fear the BIB - or if they could report about the KT mafia

they would be also defense witnesses wouldn't they?

Probably won't be many volunteering, as reported , everyone is frightened of the RTP , what a <deleted>!!in place for justice , there ain't any.

I would imagine they could easily get 200 to act as witnesses against the malpractice of the BIB on the Island. Simply proving extortion would discredit the BIB.

The prosecution is batting on a sticky wicket but doubtless the court will rule any defence evidence as inadmissible.

Keep the pressure on Myanmar, these are your citizens being screwed over.

They will need solid witnesses, not legal technicalities, to get off this rap. Irrespective of their guilt or innocence, the truth behind this indecently hasty rush to justice (or injustice) needs to be ferreted out and exposed.

200 hundred witnesses ?

Even the most ardent CTs are going to have trouble defending this one.

I'm sorry but the defence is doing their clients no favours with some of their tactics and statements.

AFAK they did not say 200 witnesses that can confirm the B2 did not do the crime.

But a lot of witnesses who can make public the extortion practice of the BIB in KT

and that the Burmese had to fear the BIB - or if they could report about the KT mafia

they would be also defense witnesses wouldn't they?

No.

They could call aung san suu kyi herself, she could fly in on a cloud in a haze of pixie dust and tell everyone she was with them all night and they were innocent, and yet it still wouldn't make a blind bit of difference. These boys are shiite out of luck and bang in trouble.

why did not the British investigators take DNA samples from the two boys and test them against the semen in the decesed body? Surely it is the first thing to be done. Or did the RTP refuse to let them?

We have witnesses... But they won't testify?

If they cannot testify about the crime itself I doubt the judges will allow many to testify at all.

Maybe you should read the OP again:"At the moment we have about 60 witnesses, but some of them are afraid to testify, as they fear for their lives"

Doesn't it bother you, that the people you so blindly are defending, clearly have intimidated and threatened potential witnesses??

Sad to see a fellow expat selling his soul to protect business/personal interests!!

200 hundred witnesses ?

Even the most ardent CTs are going to have trouble defending this one.

I'm sorry but the defence is doing their clients no favours with some of their tactics and statements.

AFAK they did not say 200 witnesses that can confirm the B2 did not do the crime.

But a lot of witnesses who can make public the extortion practice of the BIB in KT

and that the Burmese had to fear the BIB - or if they could report about the KT mafia

they would be also defense witnesses wouldn't they?

No.

Surely the Myanmar Defence team don't need witnesses to prove corruption etc on Koh Tao when all they have to do is refer to the crackdown vowed by the PM as reported on http://www.nationmul...s-30244060.html "PM Prayuth vows crackdown on Koh Tao vices"and a further reference to suppressing 'vice' under http://www.nationmul...a-30244247.html." Koh Tao murder probe 85% complete;panya" I think it's fair to say that if the PM vows to start a crackdown on 'vice' in Koh Tao, he would only say this if he has evidence of it's existence? On the other hand maybe the likes of JD and TJT feel the PM's proposed crackdown was just the start of another conspiracy theory? If at first the links don't work, simply 'Google' them to find the news stories.

200 hundred witnesses ?

Even the most ardent CTs are going to have trouble defending this one.

I'm sorry but the defence is doing their clients no favours with some of their tactics and statements.

AFAK they did not say 200 witnesses that can confirm the B2 did not do the crime.

But a lot of witnesses who can make public the extortion practice of the BIB in KT

and that the Burmese had to fear the BIB - or if they could report about the KT mafia

they would be also defense witnesses wouldn't they?

In that case it would be 200 witnesses for a different case, alleged abuse by the police and mafia in Koh Tao.

We have witnesses... But they won't testify?

If they cannot testify about the crime itself I doubt the judges will allow many to testify at all.

Maybe you should read the OP again:"At the moment we have about 60 witnesses, but some of them are afraid to testify, as they fear for their lives"

Doesn't it bother you, that the people you so blindly are defending, clearly have intimidated and threatened potential witnesses??

Sad to see a fellow expat selling his soul to protect business/personal interests!!

Maybe you should read the thread from yesterday, where they said they had only 2 witnesses, so they have multiplied by 30 overnight?

Seems to me there will be little cooperation from the police in supplying a Mayanmar lawyer with evidence against them. Nor would it very difficult for B. Lawyers to get any cooperation from any Thai in and around rhe murder.

lets hope the jugdes make the right decisions. So called evidnece the police have shoud be construed not 100% but 1000%. As is abundantly clear they cannot be trusted.

why did not the British investigators take DNA samples from the two boys and test them against the semen in the decesed body? Surely it is the first thing to be done. Or did the RTP refuse to let them?

The question you should be asking is why (if not) hasn't the defense asked the British investigators to do so and compare it with their own coroner's results.

Instead they want to call in "we are trying to contact the leaders of migrant workers, committee members who are helping Myanmar migrant workers in Thailand and migrant workers who love their country.", that is to say, not witnesses directly related with the crime.

why did not the British investigators take DNA samples from the two boys and test them against the semen in the decesed body? Surely it is the first thing to be done. Or did the RTP refuse to let them?

Who said they didn't? Their report is not due in until January, who knows what it contains.......

why did not the British investigators take DNA samples from the two boys and test them against the semen in the decesed body? Surely it is the first thing to be done. Or did the RTP refuse to let them?

Who said they didn't? Their report is not due in until January, who knows what it contains.......

I highly recommend people to read or listen to Dan Dennet; why I'm bringing that up?

Philosopher Daniel Dennett Presents Seven Tools For Critical Thinking

3. The “Surely” Klaxon

A “Klaxon” is a loud, electric horn—such as a car horn—an urgent warning. In this point, Dennett asks us to treat the word “surely” as a rhetorical warning sign that an author of an argumentative essay has stated an “ill-examined ‘truism’” without offering sufficient reason or evidence, hoping the reader will quickly agree and move on. While this is not always the case, writes Dennett, such verbiage often signals a weak point in an argument, since these words would not be necessary if the author, and reader, really could be “sure.”

_{I wish them success in their defence}

why did not the British investigators take DNA samples from the two boys and test them against the semen in the decesed body? Surely it is the first thing to be done. Or did the RTP refuse to let them?

Who said they didn't? Their report is not due in until January, who knows what it contains.......

they did it long time ago.... oooppss, can't say it, they bribed a warden to do it...

why did not the British investigators take DNA samples from the two boys and test them against the semen in the decesed body? Surely it is the first thing to be done. Or did the RTP refuse to let them?

Who said they didn't? Their report is not due in until January, who knows what it contains.......

I highly recommend people to read or listen to Dan Dennet; why I'm bringing that up?

Philosopher Daniel Dennett Presents Seven Tools For Critical Thinking

3. The “Surely” Klaxon

A “Klaxon” is a loud, electric horn—such as a car horn—an urgent warning. In this point, Dennett asks us to treat the word “surely” as a rhetorical warning sign that an author of an argumentative essay has stated an “ill-examined ‘truism’” without offering sufficient reason or evidence, hoping the reader will quickly agree and move on. While this is not always the case, writes Dennett, such verbiage often signals a weak point in an argument, since these words would not be necessary if the author, and reader, really could be “sure.”

What is your point really? I don't get you. Are you trying to lecture people how to discuss things? Besides you said that you have to wait till the trials to make any comments. So why bother commenting, as you can't back up any thing and can't contribute to anything.

Don't forget, this is a forum for public opinion and not the court. He is merely making a statement of possibility and not definite statement. You sure like to take things out of context and manipulate it so you can look smart, sorry to say, it's not working. It's having the reverse affect. And how you answered it, proves that.

I highly recommend people to read or listen to Dan Dennet; why I'm bringing that up?

Philosopher Daniel Dennett Presents Seven Tools For Critical Thinking

3. The “Surely” Klaxon

A “Klaxon” is a loud, electric horn—such as a car horn—an urgent warning. In this point, Dennett asks us to treat the word “surely” as a rhetorical warning sign that an author of an argumentative essay has stated an “ill-examined ‘truism’” without offering sufficient reason or evidence, hoping the reader will quickly agree and move on. While this is not always the case, writes Dennett, such verbiage often signals a weak point in an argument, since these words would not be necessary if the author, and reader, really could be “sure.”

What is your point really? I don't get you. Are you trying to lecture people how to discuss things? Besides you said that you have to wait till the trials to make any comments. So why bother commenting, as you can't back up any thing and can't contribute to anything.

Don't forget, this is a forum for public opinion and not the court. He is merely making a statement of possibility and not definite statement. You sure like to take things out of context and manipulate it so you can look smart, sorry to say, it's not working. It's having the reverse affect. And how you answered it, proves that.

"Are you trying to lecture people how to discuss things?"

As a matter of fact yes, I'd like to educate people in critical thinking and logic, I believe that would make the world a better place. Do you have a problem with that?

So many witnesses and nobody wants to testify. That's sad. Someone must come forward and not give in to wannabe bullies.

Possibly some rhetoric aimed as a delaying tactic until the Brit coroner report is published. Whether that report is going to help either the prosecution or the defence is unknown. But I do like the way they're biting back.

Possibly some rhetoric aimed as a delaying tactic until the Brit coroner report is published. Whether that report is going to help either the prosecution or the defence is unknown. But I do like the way they're biting back.

More delaying tactics for a slow Saturday:

I highly recommend people to read or listen to Dan Dennet; why I'm bringing that up?

Philosopher Daniel Dennett Presents Seven Tools For Critical Thinking

3. The “Surely” Klaxon

A “Klaxon” is a loud, electric horn—such as a car horn—an urgent warning. In this point, Dennett asks us to treat the word “surely” as a rhetorical warning sign that an author of an argumentative essay has stated an “ill-examined ‘truism’” without offering sufficient reason or evidence, hoping the reader will quickly agree and move on. While this is not always the case, writes Dennett, such verbiage often signals a weak point in an argument, since these words would not be necessary if the author, and reader, really could be “sure.”

What is your point really? I don't get you. Are you trying to lecture people how to discuss things? Besides you said that you have to wait till the trials to make any comments. So why bother commenting, as you can't back up any thing and can't contribute to anything.

Don't forget, this is a forum for public opinion and not the court. He is merely making a statement of possibility and not definite statement. You sure like to take things out of context and manipulate it so you can look smart, sorry to say, it's not working. It's having the reverse affect. And how you answered it, proves that.

"Are you trying to lecture people how to discuss things?"

As a matter of fact yes, I'd like to educate people in critical thinking and logic, I believe that would make the world a better place. Do you have a problem with that?

Ahh...As I thought. Then you need to learn communication than. Instead of spewing out: "...How do you know they didn't". It reads to me you are making a statement countering the other poster's. you don't read the context rather pick at something and tried to fabricate a flaw in the logic. I got it right away from his statement that he was not sure about it. Accept you.

Remember this is a discussion about a case that no one has evidence to back anything up. Not even you. So being the logic guru, why are you even making comments as not even you have any evidence to rebut their statement.

May I suggest to you how I could have phrased the response:

"I am sure that would be something the defense team should have done, however we can't be sure that they did or not." Something like that. In the context of things and for the sake of discussion, that word "surely" was appropriate.

Your statement makes the assumption that the poster didn't know how to present his view. He did just fine. I get his view.

If you going to be the guru of logic here, maybe learn how to communicate better would be a start.

What is your point really? I don't get you. Are you trying to lecture people how to discuss things? Besides you said that you have to wait till the trials to make any comments. So why bother commenting, as you can't back up any thing and can't contribute to anything.

Don't forget, this is a forum for public opinion and not the court. He is merely making a statement of possibility and not definite statement. You sure like to take things out of context and manipulate it so you can look smart, sorry to say, it's not working. It's having the reverse affect. And how you answered it, proves that.

"Are you trying to lecture people how to discuss things?"

As a matter of fact yes, I'd like to educate people in critical thinking and logic, I believe that would make the world a better place. Do you have a problem with that?

Ahh...As I thought. Then you need to learn communication than. Instead of spewing out: "...How do you know they didn't". It reads to me you are making a statement countering the other poster's. you don't read the context rather pick at something and tried to fabricate a flaw in the logic. I got it right away from his statement that he was not sure about it. Accept you.

Remember this is a discussion about a case that no one has evidence to back anything up. Not even you. So being the logic guru, why are you even making comments as not even you have any evidence to rebut their statement.

May I suggest to you how I could have phrased the response:

"I am sure that would be something the defense team should have done, however we can't be sure that they did or not." Something like that. In the context of things and for the sake of discussion, that word "surely" was appropriate.

Your statement makes the assumption that the poster didn't know how to present his view. He did just fine. I get his view.

If you going to be the guru of logic here, maybe learn how to communicate better would be a start.

You know, if you are going to get so worked up about communication you should pay more attention at what you read, it was JeremyBowskill how said "How do you know they didn't", or to be precise "Who said they didn't?", not me.

It really makes the rest of your post comically ironic, specially the part about cherry picking things to fabricate a flaw in logic.

why did not the British investigators take DNA samples from the two boys and test them against the semen in the decesed body? Surely it is the first thing to be done. Or did the RTP refuse to let them?

The could'nt. The was only allowed to observe.