Num Kanchai Ends Settlement Talks With Poo Mandhana
Num Kanchai states that Poo Mandhana initiated mediation talks in their defamation lawsuit, but rejected his offer to admit guilt on 17 counts in exchange for dropping over 60 other charges.
Stock photo for illustration only, not from the actual event
- Num Kanchai reveals Poo Mandhana initiated court-supervised mediation talks.
- Offered to drop over 60 charges if she confessed to 17 counts, but she refused.
- Defense lawyer presented video proof with engagement metrics to counter editing claims.
- Num Kanchai officially closes the door on settlement and leaves it to the court.
The atmosphere at the court was tense as TV host Num Kanchai, accompanied by his legal team including attorney Dr. Montchai Jongkairattanakul and attorney Amnuayporn Maneewan, arrived for court proceedings. Initially, defendant Poo Mandhana expressed a desire to seek a settlement through mediation, a request that Kanchai welcomed and agreed to participate in to find a peaceful resolution.
However, the negotiations collapsed as the defendant declined Kanchai's single straightforward condition. Kanchai explained that he offered to drop approximately 60 remaining charges and an ongoing police complaint—amounting to roughly 78 total counts—if she agreed to confess guilt on just 17 specific counts. Despite the lenient offer designed to close the legal dispute, the opposing side rejected the proposal, forcing both parties to proceed with witness cross-examination in the afternoon.
Stock photo for illustration only, not from the actual event
When asked why the opposing party rejected the confession offer, Kanchai admitted he was puzzled, noting that the deal would have significantly reduced her legal burden. He speculated that she might have been worried about previous pending lawsuits or potential cumulative sentencing due to ongoing legal battles with his attorney. Kanchai also emphasized that he demanded no financial compensation or public apology, only asking for accountability through the legal framework.
"Actually, the proposal was that she had to confess to publicly defaming me. As the media and reasonable people have witnessed, even though she claimed no names were mentioned..."
Regarding the defense argument that the social media posts lacked specific names, attorney Amnuayporn countered in court by demonstrating that surrounding context and public reactions clearly pointed to Kanchai. Addressing previous allegations from the defense that the plaintiff's evidence was doctored or fabricated, the legal team presented live recorded video footage from the defendant's Facebook page from the previous year, showing exact engagement metrics including 211 likes, 60 comments, and multiple shares to prove the authenticity of the posts.
In Thai defamation lawsuits involving social media broadcasts, defendants frequently argue that omitting a direct name exempts them from liability. However, Thai jurisprudence consistently evaluates whether a reasonable person in society can deduce the target based on surrounding context. The presence of public engagement data and widespread media coverage serves as vital evidence to establish intent and identification in court.
Furthermore, during the afternoon session, Kanchai expressed surprise when the defense introduced unfamiliar evidence into the court record, noting that some of the presented materials did not reflect factual reality.
Concluding the day's events, Kanchai firmly stated that the window for negotiation is now completely closed. He refused any further out-of-court talks, insisting that the matter must now be thoroughly examined and ruled upon by the judicial system.
Source: Thairath Entertainment
Found something wrong in this article? Report an issue with this article
Comments
Leave a Comment