1 hour ago, Liverpool Lou said:

Sadder that you ignore the wife's assertion that she was not having an affair with him!

555 too funny, family must be lying then

45 minutes ago, scubascuba3 said:

2 hours ago, Liverpool Lou said:

Sadder that you ignore the wife's assertion that she was not having an affair with him!

555 too funny, family must be lying then

Too funny.   Maybe they are.

2 hours ago, Liverpool Lou said:

You can't, seriously, be suggesting that the only money he had to his name was the deposit and the balance, that he had no money at all before that land transaction?   

The family said the BiB found 6 baht in his pocket.

2 minutes ago, Dogmatix said:

2 hours ago, Liverpool Lou said:

You can't, seriously, be suggesting that the only money he had to his name was the deposit and the balance, that he had no money at all before that land transaction?   

The family said the BiB found 6 baht in his pocket.

So.  What's your point?

I feel sorry for Rudolf. It may be lying through his teeth but he gives the impression of being an honest and decent, if somewhat naive, guy who got caught up it in something he couldn’t understand while pursuing his dream of retirement in an idyllic village in the Isaan boonies. 
 

Trouble is you have no idea what is going on in these villages, if you are not fluent in Isaan and well plugged into the local grape vine and it is well to have good connections with the puuyai Baan and BiB. Relying on Thai wifey for everything doesn’t cut it. Farang and Mia farang are likely to be objects of both envy and derision - a dangerous mix. 

With her keenness for partying Lakh probably has a beer bar background and it is quite possible she was playing around with Sathien and others before him. Farangs are easily taken in by Thai hookers who persuade them they are not really hookers but just simple country girls at heart eager to settle down with a kind hearted farang. But taking the bar out of the of the girl is not always successful, as seems to have been the case with Lakh’s partying. If you compare with European prostitutes the problem is more obvious. How many Swiss guys would feel confident marrying one of the East European street walkers or strippers from their home towns and going to live in a remote village in Poland or somewhere. And yet the motivation and mindset of the Thai hookers is the same.

18 hours ago, Dogmatix said:

A Thai friend once claimed he took a loaded gun to the land office because he had to carry over 500k cash. When I expressed surprise. He said it’s normal. Everybody does it. If that’s true, I am surprised there are not more Wild West shoot outs there.

Back around 1982, I was volunteered to drive my filthy rich former mother-in-law from Korat to Ayutthaya for her to complete a land purchase there. We departed around 6 a.m. and I was told not to stop for anyone or any reason and go direct to the land office. The matriarch, dressed to the nines, was firmly seated in the middle of the back seat clutching a huge bag with 12 million baht in it. She also had a hand gun that I assumed was provided by her Thai army captain husband.

OK , after 10 pages, Ive got eye strain, and Im not going back to the start to look for it.   But it appears the  wife  used 300,000 baht to bail hubby out.   I didnt see that  statement on my first reading, nor did I see that the Swiss guy  had been arrested/charged with anything.   Did   both those events occur, Or am I mistaken..  If  wifey did come up with such a large sum of cash,,  has she been questioned  where it came from, and that verified.?    Im just too damn tired to scroll back through this lot.

1 minute ago, Liverpool Lou said:

Your not denying it makes it quite clear.  Thanks, that's what I needed.

Not denying or admitting anything,   read it any way you like

Some offensive troll posts and the replies have been removed. 

On 10/8/2021 at 10:59 PM, RichardColeman said:

Claim from the 'slain' family seem to get more ridiculous daily, up tomorrow swiss man must be hiding the 200 luxury cars he was looking after for him

Probably a few high end Rolex, Longines etc.. Aha, it's all making sense now.

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?

4 hours ago, wadman said:

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. 

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

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.

7 hours ago, wadman said:

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?

Was the Thai guy intoxicated?  any injuries could have been obtained even before confrontation with Swiss guy, blood loss could also cause irrational behaviour  ,but for sure the Thai guy would be showing signs of stiffness in the time it took for cops to arrive,release those bindings,get rid of them,but Swissie sure was not up to much for his own eventual questioning

2 hours ago, Liverpool Lou said:

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

What is your take on it then?

On 10/8/2021 at 8:12 PM, tonray said:

One might say the story has more holes than Swiss Cheese.

Didn't they make a movie about that?  The Emmental Affair.

 

9 hours ago, fredscats said:

12 hours ago, Liverpool Lou said:

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

What is your take on it then?

My "take" is irrelevant, medical and pathological fact is what counts.

11 hours ago, wadman said:

However, as in most cases, homicidal deaths being masqueraded as natural or suicidal deaths tend to unravel following meticulous examination.

"...in most cases, homicidal deaths [such as your examples of suffocation!] being masqueraded as natural or suicidal deaths tend to unravel following meticulous examination".

Thanks for that confirmation!

12 hours ago, fredscats said:

15 hours ago, Liverpool Lou said:

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

What is your take on it then?

Depends if you're a CSI Miami or CSI Vegas follower and how many episodes you've followed.

I have a feeling this story hasn't  reached "peak bizarre" yet.

 

He must be the first intruder to actually bring cash to an illegal entry. ????

15 hours ago, Mr Dome said:

I have a feeling this story hasn't  reached "peak bizarre" yet.

 

He must be the first intruder to actually bring cash to an illegal entry. ????

Well..we will just have to wait and see.....

On 10/11/2021 at 12:30 PM, Liverpool Lou said:

Sadder that you ignore the wife's assertion that she was not having an affair with him!

Who cares what she says? 

 

She alleged there was no affair. Doesn't make it gospel.

 

Didn't villagers contradict her?

 

11 minutes ago, 2009 said:

On 10/11/2021 at 12:30 PM, Liverpool Lou said:

Sadder that you ignore the wife's assertion that she was not having an affair with him!

Who cares what she says? 

 

She alleged there was no affair. Doesn't make it gospel.

 

Didn't villagers contradict her?

Who cares what the villagers say?

They alleged there was an affair.  Doesn't make it gospel.

Didn't she contradict the villagers?

7 minutes ago, Liverpool Lou said:

Who cares what the villagers say?

They alleged there was an affair.  Doesn't make it gospel.

Didn't she contradict the villagers?

Now you're getting it.

 

When something has been alleged it may be subject to skepticism and enquiry.

 

But as per your other post we should just blindly believe her "assertions" lol!

 

You must think she is an angel.

3 minutes ago, 2009 said:

Now you're getting it.

 

When something has been alleged it may be subject to skepticism and enquiry.

 

But as per your other post we should just blindly believe her "assertions" lol!

 

You must think she is an angel.

"Now you're getting it".

No, there's nothing that you've said to "get".  Don't flatter yourself.

 

"But ... we should just blindly believe her "assertions" lol!

You must think she is an angel".

But it's ok for you to blindly believe the assertions of the villagers!   You must think that they're angels.

4 minutes ago, Liverpool Lou said:

But ... we should just blindly believe her "assertions" lol!

You must think she is an angel".

But it's ok for you to blindly believe the assertions of the villagers!   You must think that they're angels.

No, I was merely pointing out that just because she says something does means it should be believed automatically, especially when others contradict her.

 

I don't believe anything the villagers say.........or her. 

 

My point exactly is that none of this is proven and anyone can say anything.

 

Your rebuttals make you sound like a 4 year old playing with a parrot, btw.

On 10/11/2021 at 4:02 PM, Dogmatix said:

while pursuing his dream of retirement in an idyllic village in the Isaan boonies. 
 

This is the biggest mistake we make. We go to live in the place that most of them have left.

 

People in the lowest socioeconomic level have problems and when you move there you end up with those problems (this probably all started with his wife gambling away that money) and these things are far less common in higher socioeconomic areas.

 

 

Nothing wrong with Isaan, but living in an Isaan city even is a huge step above a village. I mean you could live in an Isaan city and just visit the countryside. Or have a little farmhouse for breaks away from more cosmopolitan areas like Bangkok, Chiang Mai etc etc.

 

But to actually put roots down there will make you learn the hard way.

 

 

On 10/11/2021 at 8:01 AM, Gecko123 said:

given that his face (note: distinctive beard)

Gillette, the best a man can get.

36 minutes ago, 2009 said:

No, I was merely pointing out that just because she says something does means it should be believed automatically, especially when others contradict her.

 

I don't believe anything the villagers say.........or her. 

 

My point exactly is that none of this is proven and anyone can say anything.

 

Your rebuttals make you sound like a 4 year old playing with a parrot, btw.

"Your rebuttals make you sound like a 4 year old playing with a parrot, btw".

That's just your (irrelevant to me) opinion...by the way.

On 10/10/2021 at 2:49 PM, ThaSalaPaul said:

The evidence of the land sale was shown on page 2 of the comments (by Gecko)

QED!  Easy to prove but I missed it. Read carefully before replying??????