A Chulalongkorn University lecturer has withdrawn his court case over the Centre for the Resolution of the Emergency Situation’s ‘Lom Chao’ (overthrowing the monarchy) chart after the CRES spokesperson told the court that people whose names appeared on it were not meant to be part of a conspiracy.
History lecturer Suthachai Yimprasert filed a criminal lawsuit against Abhisit Vejjajiva, Suthep Thaugsuban and Col Sansern Kaewkamnerd for the controversial chart which was produced and distributed by the CRES in the run up to the government crackdown on the red shirts last year. The chart showed the names of persons alleged to be involved in a plot to overthrow the monarchy, and the relationships among them.
On 22 March, Suthachai agreed to withdraw the case after the Criminal Court’s mediation. Col Sansern and his lawyer together with lawyers for the other two defendants were present at the court.
According to Col Sansern’s statement as quoted by the court, the CRES at the time of the release of the chart believed that there really was a movement aimed at overthrowing the monarchy.
At that time information was disseminated, particularly through the internet, alleging that Thanphuying (Lady) Jarungjit Teekhara, Secretary to HM the Queen, made phone calls all the time to the CRES ordering action against the demonstrators. This was an attempt to mislead society into believing that Her Majesty was involved in politics, said the Colonel.
So the CRES had to explain the truth to society, and it compiled information which had been gathered by several security agencies about a conspiracy against the monarchy to accompany its explanation, he said.
On the morning of 26 April 2010, he held a press conference to deny the allegation against Thanphuying Jarungjit and told the press that those who were involved in the conspiracy at that time included Da Torpedo and Jakkraphob Penkair. The CRES meeting that afternoon decided to release the chart for the public to consider.
He was assigned by the CRES to distribute the chart to the press.
He said that the chart was not meant to say that those whose names appeared on it were part of the subversive movement, but it showed that the persons were related to one another in various ways, such as being relatives or business partners, which was to be considered and judged by the public.
He did not say that all those people were related as co-conspirators and he did not give that meaning, he said.
However, the chart was later reported and explained by the press, and that might affect the reputation of those who were mentioned. And it is up to those individuals whether or not they will take legal action against people who explained the chart in ways that were not meant by the CRES, he said.
According to Suthachai’s lawyer Prawase Praphanukul, Suthachai held a press conference about this on 25 May as he had just received an official copy of the criminal court proceeding.