wadman

6 hours ago, placeholder said:

You raised the issue of effects from vaccination arising years later, not me. As I pointed out, if it's the possibility of latent effects that concerns you, it makes more sense to be concerned about contracting covid rather than about being vaccinated.

Governments clearly agree too, that the risk vs rewards of the vaccines are not cut and dried.  That's why the approval for children has taken much longer, and even now it's only for those aged 12 and above.  In a country like the US, anyone who wanted a vaccine has had that opportunity, so it's not a case of prioritizing for the old anymore.

Fact remains that these vaccines have been fast tracked greatly, and we just don't know all the risks that come with them.  If you are in the 70+ age group, run (don't walk) to get a vaccine.  For children at 0.2% of the risk...hmmmm...

12 hours ago, placeholder said:

There's never been a case of a vaccine giving rise to a latent disease. Whereas that's not true of viral diseases, is it. So if it's somewhere in the not so distant or distant future you're concerned about, clearly it makes a long more sense to fear the long term consequences of not being vaccinated.

There are reasons why vaccines go through a lengthy approval process.  If Covid wasn't so contagious, with so many people dying, covid vaccines would never have been approved so quickly.  It would have taken years and years.

Now with Covid causing this many deaths, it makes sense to fast track the vaccines.  The reasoning being that whatever risks you are taking with fast tracking the vaccines is (easily) being outweighted by the benefits. 

This is true for adults.  The point of the OP and my point also is, does that still hold for children?  Most studies have shown that children suffer only about 0.2% of all covid deaths.  As I have said before, if I had a child, I wouldn't vaccinate him/her (not yet).

On 9/17/2021 at 2:06 AM, Hatch said:

Statistically speaking, the kid is talking the truth.

 

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-021-89615-4

It's even less than that. Most studies put the percentage of covid deaths in children at 0.2% or less. In the US, it's less than 0.1 %. With the covid vaccines, it seems that for short to medium term, they are quite safe. For the long term, nobody knows of course as these vaccines have only been administered for a year or so. If I had a kid, I wouldn't vaccinate him/her. 

1 hour ago, Liverpool Lou said:

You think?  You really think that suffocation doesn't leave observable clues on a body?

Autopsy – Deaths associated with asphyxia – MEDICO LEGAL TRAINING (mlt.gov.np)

Suffocation
Suffocation is used to describe death due to reduction of the concentration of oxygen in respired air. A reduction in atmospheric oxygen can occur in a decompressed aircraft cabin, an unused well or a grain silo. Reduction in the oxygen concentration of respired air can also occur due to mechanical causes like due to placing plastic bag around the head.

Postmortem examination reveals absence of classical signs of asphyxia. If the cause of obstruction is removed before examination, there may be no features attributable to death. This can also be seen in extremes of age, where the victim is intoxicated or unable to defend, and there may no signs of injuries on the body.

Suffocation is almost impossible to diagnose on post-mortem examination, if the offending object has been removed. However, as in most cases, homicidal deaths being masqueraded as natural or suicidal deaths tend to unravel following meticulous examination.

1. The autopsy states that the cause of death of Sathian is a "liver rupture".  That's actually in favour of Rudolph, as that pretty much absolves him of murder.  If you intent to kill someone, you don't kick/bash him a few times in the liver area, hoping for a liver rupture to kill him.  That's leaving way too much to chance.  There are no reports of massive damage on that side of Sathian, so it's not like he was bashed on that side until a liver rupture was inevitable. 

That still doesn't clear Rudolph of manslaughter though.  Manslaughter basically means he didn't mean/intent to kill Sathian, but unless Sathian's liver ruptured spontaneously, it was Rudolph's actions that killed him.

2. Can a ruptured liver really kill that quickly though?  The fight was reported to have occurred at 10:30 pm, first the village chief was called and at that point it was determined that Sathian was already dead. The police was then called, and arrived shortly after midnight.  So a reasonable estimate is that the village chief arrived no later than 11:30 pm.  Does a ruptured liver really kill in 1 hour?  Sathian wasn't just dying at that point, he was already dead.

3. If Rudolph really meant to kill Sathian, the easiest and surest way would be to suffocate him after he was unconscious.  Plastic bag over his head, or pinch his nose and cover his mouth, wait for 5 minutes and it's a sure thing.  It wouldn't leave any marks on the body either.  Sathian almost certainly had a ruptured liver, but was that the actual cause of death?  Would suffocating someone who is unconscious leave evidence (such as burst blood vessels)?  Did the coroner perform a test for suffocation and explicitly ruled that out?

1 hour ago, Gecko123 said:

You make some interesting and valid points. But if you go with the theory that he freely gave 290K to Lak prior to his death, where does that leave us? Bestowing hefty sums of money (both after the cattle and land sales) on a woman who is married? What was his end game? I know how Thai guys think. Yes, they can fall head over heels in love with a woman, but when you're talking that kind of money (and it's been reported that aside from these sales he only earned 6-7,000 baht per month), a Thai guy, almost out of necessity, would have to give at least some consideration to eventually getting a financial return on his investment. Maybe he had finally gotten her to agree that if he gave her this final gift of money, she would let him plug her farang husband and keep her mouth shut and he would get to move in to the house, and they would live happily ever after. With money possibly changing hands, his coming to the house at night, pulling a gun, and almost certainly knowing she was home at the time, it just feels like some Rubicon had been crossed, some firm decision was made which there was no turning back from, and I suspect that the plan was Rudolph wasn't supposed to be in the picture after that night.

The house is likely in the wife's name.  She could have simply filed for divorce, and then told Rudolph to get the F out of HER house, at which point Sathian moves in.  No need to kill the farang. 

The only possible monetary motive I can see is if the wife and/or Sathian thought they could benefit from Rudolph's life insurance policy and his pension.  But this affair had been going on for 2-3 years, if Rudolph had any brains at all he would have long removed her as a beneficiary (and let her known about it).

The only explanation that makes sense is that this was all a result of anger and emotions.  We know that Sathian went to their house, and encountered Rudolph.  The ensuing encounter could not have been friendly.  Rudolph must be incredibly mild mannered for him not to lose his temper.  I know that if I were in his shoes, one wrong move or word, and it would have been fisticuffs.

12 minutes ago, Gecko123 said:

Hang on a sec. He received the money on October 1rst (according to the buyers). According to her, they didn't have any contact on October 2nd, except that they may have spoken on the phone around 2:30PM. I don't think anybody has admitted so far that they actually had physical contact that day. So if the explanation is that Setiyon gave it to her before he died, the question is naturally going to be "when did he give it to her?" And if the answer is "he gave me the money later in the day after he called me at 2:30PM" well, that means she had additional contact with him closer and closer to the time he showed up at 10:30 at night at her house armed with a fully loaded revolver. It will also mean that she has repeatedly changed her story, never a good sign in the eyes of the police. As the last point of contact between Lak and Setiyon keeps getting closer and closer to 10:30 PM, this is increasing the likelihood that she knew what his motive for coming to the house was. If the fingerprints of the couple who purchased the land from Setiyon are on the bail money, I don't think there's going to be a quick and easy way to explain that away.

 

Keep in mind that the window of time for when he could have given her the money is getting smaller and smaller. If she says she got the money around 4:30PM on Oct 2nd, she better hope his cell phone and her cell phone triangulate to the same area at that time, or there are witnesses who can attest to their meeting, or that his mother and ex-wife don't come back and say "that's impossible, we were all enjoying a plate of som tam together at the house at 4:30 PM, and there are 10 witnesses who can verify this."

Sathian received the money on oct 1, he died the night of Oct 2. So that's 2 days in which he could have given her the money. Swiss wife also came home late (by village standards) on the night of Oct 2, from "drinking with friends". Might her lover have been one of those friends, or indeed the only friend? 

Sathian carelessly having all that cash in his pocket (one full day after he received it), knowing that he was going into a potentially explosive situation (to the point where he felt the need to carry a gun) doesn't make any sense whatsoever. 

I think a lot of the confusion comes from the fact that Sathian's mother said that he had 290k "on his person". I'm thinking that's a poor translation, and she didn't mean that he was literally carrying it around on his person all that time. Just that he had received the money, and thus would have no motive for an armed robbery as claimed by the Swiss. 

4 hours ago, Gecko123 said:

I'm not sure what you're saying here. The wife's fingerprints on the bail money wouldn't be significant, as she's the one who paid the bail money. But if the land buyer's prints are on the bail money, that ties the bail money to Setiyon, and the wife would have to explain how she came into possession of the money.

Apparently Sathian/Sathien/Setiyon sold 12 heads of cattle in September for 520k, and the Swiss wife got the bulk of that money (according to Sathian's mother). So if the police finds that the 290k from the land sale was used by the wife as bail money, her explanation for that would be easy enough: Sathian gave it to her. 

5 minutes ago, bbko said:

People (myself included) first thought the "Money! Money!" statement meant it was a robbery attempt, but it also could have been that the Thai man was angry and wanted a return on the money he had given the wife.  

So Sathian cuckolds Rudolph by sleeping with his wife.  He may have given her money to butter her up.  And then he was unhappy about that, and feels the wife owes him that money.  So... he then demands a repayment from the cuckolded husband???  Even in Thai logic that doesn't add up.

1 hour ago, possum1931 said:

If it can be proved that the deceased guy had a loaded gun in his hand while on the Swiss guys property, then that's it, end of story.

The real issue is how the Thai guy died.  Did he die as an accidental result of the fight, as claimed by the Swiss?  Or did the Swiss kill him after he was unconscious/tied up?  In that case, it would be murder.

Whether the Swiss knew that the Thai guy was his wife's lover, whether the Thai guy had the gun pointed at the Swiss (or merely in his pocket), doesn't really matter.  Point is still, Thai guy went to the Swiss guy's house packing a gun and a fight broke out.  For the fight and the accidental death (if it was accidental) you cannot convict the Swiss.

5 hours ago, hotchilli said:

Swiss wife calls lover:

Hi darling, I have a plan, pop over tonight and bring a gun, knock-off the old man.
The investigation will go no-where, I'll inherit everything, you can move in at the weekend.

How does that sound?

What would the wife really inherit though? What would she and her lover materially gain from killing the Swiss? 

The house is either a rental or in her name. Either way, nothing to be gained here. 

She can just walk away and file for a divorce, no need to kill the Swiss to be free. 

The only thing is his pension. Would that really go to the wife under these circumstances though, with her and her lover surely to be prime suspects if they managed to kill the Swiss? 

It sounds more like the trigger was feelings and emotions. 

Another news article about the case:

Family members of Thai man who was killed by Swiss national in Udon Thani claim motive was affair not money - The Pattaya News

Sathien’s mother, Khan Chantarakhantri, told the Thai press that her son was secretly having a relationship with Rudolf’s wife for 2-3 years. The reason he went inside the house was that the wife was reportedly calling him. However, Sathien instead confronted the foreigner before there was a quarrel and subsequent physical altercation.

“The autopsy concluded that he died of a liver rupture. He might have been beaten to death. Please be just and don’t say that my son went to rob the foreigner. It ruins our family reputation,” she added.

So apparently the wife was calling Sathien.  He came over, got into a fight, a shot was fired, and then she had to be woken up by her husband?  Hmmm...

Autopsy says death by liver damage.  Reports also note that Sathien "had cheek and eyebrow cuts and bruises".  But Rudolph doesn't have a single mark on his body.  Must have been quite the one-sided fight.

7 minutes ago, robblok said:

Either the Swiss guy has balls of steel and was well trained, or it was an ambush and the Thai guy never saw it coming.

 

I would still go for the Swiss his story. I mean who would kill a love rival, I mean there are easier ways to get rid of someone.

 

 

I would say that Rudolph knew about his wife's infidelities and the identity of her lover.  Apparently they had been seeing each other for 2-3 year, and the relatives and locals all knew about it.  He must be pretty blind not to.

So if her lover comes around, and the 2 get into a serious fight, with Rudolph beating him into unconsciousness, then you know with Thais and their idea of losing face that this will not end there.  Sathien's sense of honour will only be satisfied if he beats Rudolph to within an inch of his life. 

So if that was the situation, what would you do if you were in Rudolph's flip-flops?

A. let him live, knowing full well that he will come after you with deadly intent

B. let him live, and move far, far away ASAP

C. have an "oops" while he is unconscious

3 minutes ago, tomyami said:

If the swiss man was shot dead would it have being covered up, like so many farang who have disappeared in the sticks, to thai's its just another farang house recovered.

 

If the Swiss was shot dead, he would have no one to speak up for him (I doubt the wife would).  

2 minutes ago, ukrules said:

Sure, that's why he took the gun with him right?

 

So you're suggesting he went there to rob the guy of the house, make him homeless but not steal his money? Makes perfect sense ????

To intimidate him into moving away.  Not on the spot, but hopefully soon.  A gun is a great tool to add to the intimidation.

2021 is a very crummy economic year for Thailand.

If 2022 is forecasted to be only 5% better than that, it's basically: same excrement, slightly less stinky pile.

1. The wife admits to knowing the deceased, says he is a "friend of a friend" and she has turned down his romantic advances.  It is unlikely that a Thai man in a village goes directly from "hello" to "do you want to get it on", so it is likely that they must have had a fair amount of interaction, gotten to know each other to a fair degree.

2. There is no mention of the deceased having a criminal record, or the reputation of being one.  I get that people get economically desperate during these times, especially day labourers like the deceased.  But then you steal, maybe break in when the owners aren't present.  It's unlikely that one goes from "not a criminal" to a robber at gunpoint all in one go.

3. Of all the houses to rob, the deceased had to choose that of the Swiss.  Hardly makes sense if he just wanted money out of desperation.

As best as I can tell, the deceased saw that the lights were on in the house, which didn't faze him at all.  He came armed with a pistol.  He came WITH INTENT.  My assessment is that Thai man didn't intent to kill the Swiss outright.  Otherwise, as soon as they were facing each other, he would have unloaded 4 shots quickly, and then aimed carefully with the other 2 shots.

Which leaves the following possibilities:

- the Thai man came to talk.  Not in a nice way, mind you.  More to threaten the Swiss at gunpoint.  And then something went wrong.

- the gun didn't belong to the Thai man.

11 hours ago, HampiK said:

I had problems like this yesterday.. I should do a new register and then could not do it...

 

Check in app-store for a newer version. I could do an update yesterday afternoon... after that it worked again

Same with me. Didn't work yesterday or today, until I updated the app. Now it works again. 

12 hours ago, sirineou said:

That was me.

at sixty during a routine physical for certification, a heart murmur was detected, I was told i had to see a cardiologist before my certification was issued. I saw a cardiologist and he said I was born with a bicuspid Aortic heart  valve, where instead of three slits I had  two, and would not certify me. He said I could live 20 years with it, or I could die tomorrow, but he would not certify me. Long story short , I had Aortic valve repayment. 

If I was vaccinated and died a couple of days later , they would had said , healthy marathon runner dies after vaccinated.   

If you died (from a heart attack) shortly after being vaccinated, then there is a probability that the vaccine caused it yes (caused it, as in triggered it).  The shorter the time between vaccination and death/complications, the higher the probability. 

If it happens 5 minutes after, the vaccine surely must be the prime suspect. 

If it happens 20 days later, the probability goes way down.