On the morning of 17 Sep 2026 GMT+7, Poo Mantana Himathongkham along with her lawyer, arrived at the Bangkok South Criminal Court to face Noom Kanchai Kamnerdploy for the first time in the case where Noom is the plaintiff suing Poo for 17 counts of defamation by advertising. This was a scheduled hearing for plaintiff's witness testimony. Poo requested mediation, but the mediation was unsuccessful. After the session, Poo Mantana and her lawyer spoke to the media.
What is the conclusion today?
Lawyer: We couldn't reach an agreement, and two witnesses were examined.
Regarding the failed mediation, what condition proposed by Noom was accepted or rejected more?
Lawyer: I can't specify the proportions, but both sides couldn't agree; the conditions didn't match.
Today, the process involved mediation first, then witness testimony. Could you explain?
Lawyer: There was mediation as per court policy. When mediation failed, witness testimony proceeded.
Which conditions failed to be communicated?
Lawyer: I prefer not to answer that; you can ask the other side. These conditions are court matters, so I don't want to discuss them here.
Was it Poo's side or Noom's side that did not accept the conditions?
Lawyer: Since the conditions didn't align after being proposed, we don't know who rejected them. When conditions don't match, they are dropped.
Today, only plaintiff's witnesses were examined?
Lawyer: Yes, only plaintiff's witnesses. Tomorrow, the plaintiff has two more witnesses, and the defendant will present theirs.
How many witnesses will the defense present?
Lawyer: The defense has three witnesses, and the plaintiff has two remaining.
Is it unlikely that negotiations will continue from now on?
Lawyer: Until the verdict is issued, everything is still possible, theoretically and practically.
So Poo is still willing to negotiate?
Lawyer: Yes, willing to negotiate going forward.
Listening to today's witness testimony, are you concerned about the evidence?
Lawyer: It's normal court procedure. Witnesses are examined and cross-examined; that's standard.
From the cross-examination, did you gather the main points?
Lawyer: (laughs) It's factual in the case files, so I'd rather hold off commenting.
How was the atmosphere in the courtroom today?
Poo Mantana: I just sat and listened to the plaintiff’s witness testimony. Nothing else, just listening quietly.
Sorrayuth Suthassanachinda posted that the program "Rueng Lao Chao Nee" did not cover Poo, so it did not lie or distort facts. What is Poo’s view on this?
Poo Mantana: The Facebook page posted it. The "Rueng Lao Chao Nee" program post is on Facebook, as the media has seen.
This morning the lawyer said Poo made mistakes in the past and is willing to negotiate. Did the lawyer mention this?
Lawyer: I said that due to past communication mistakes, today I told Poo to speak less to prevent miscommunication with journalists or references to others, so no conflicts arise.
But you admit you mentioned Poo’s past mistakes?
Lawyer: You’d have to check; I don’t recall. We’ve been in court all day.
Poo Mantana: I did not say anything this morning. The media distorted the facts.
Regarding past mistakes, is the aim now to avoid more cases and reduce case numbers?
Lawyer: You can review the interview; that's fine.
. Click to readEntertainment newsMore