TikTok Tarot Reader Ordered to Pay $10 Million for False Murder Claims Against Professor
A TikTok influencer who built a following by analyzing high-profile cases through tarot cards and spiritual intuition has been ordered to pay $10 million in damages to a University of Idaho professor she falsely accused of involvement in the 2022 murders of four students.
Federal Jury Delivers Swift Verdict
A federal jury in Boise deliberated for less than two hours on Friday before finding Ashley Guillard liable for defamation and awarding substantial damages to history professor Rebecca Scofield. The trial, which lasted four days, focused solely on determining damages after a judge had already ruled Guillard's statements defamatory in June 2024.
Guillard, 41, represented herself during the proceedings and called only one witness—herself. She testified about her belief in psychic abilities developed through YouTube tutorials, numerology, and self-study of tarot reading.
Years of False Accusations
Beginning just after the November 2022 murders, Guillard posted more than 100 TikTok videos claiming Scofield was linked to the stabbing deaths of students Ethan Chapin, Madison Mogen, Xana Kernodle, and Kaylee Goncalves. These accusations continued until August 2025, despite Bryan Kohberger having been arrested six weeks after the murders and pleading guilty to all four killings in July 2025.
In her videos, Guillard alleged without evidence that Scofield had been romantically involved with one of the victims and ordered the killing when the student threatened to expose their relationship. She posted Scofield's photograph and personal information online, creating what the professor described as a terrifying loss of control over her own identity.
Profound Personal and Professional Consequences
Scofield testified that the false accusations caused severe anxiety, post-traumatic stress disorder, and nerve pain throughout her body, making it difficult for her to work as chair of the University of Idaho's history department. She described avoiding a vigil for the victims out of fear and feeling cut off from her community.
"There was a moment where it felt like I lost ownership of my face and my name, and it was no longer stitched to my body," Scofield told jurors during emotional testimony. "It was utterly terrifying."Guillard continued posting videos even after receiving cease-and-desist letters and after Moscow police publicly stated Scofield was not a suspect. In December 2022, Scofield filed her defamation lawsuit, beginning the legal process that culminated in Friday's verdict.
Substantial Damages Awarded
The jury awarded Scofield $6.5 million for false accusations related to the murders and $3.5 million for claims about an inappropriate relationship with a student. Of the total $10 million award, $7.5 million constituted punitive damages intended to punish Guillard and deter similar conduct from others.
The remaining $2.5 million covered medical costs and compensation for emotional distress suffered by Scofield and her family.
Clear Message About Online Accountability
In a statement after the verdict, Scofield emphasized the broader implications of the case: "The $10 million verdict reinforces the judge's decision and sends the clear message that false statements online have consequences in the real world for real people and are unacceptable in our community."
She added: "The murders of the four students on November 13, 2022, was the darkest chapter in our university's history. Today's decision shows that respect and care should always be granted to victims during these tragedies."
Chief U.S. Magistrate Judge Raymond Patricco had previously ruled in June 2024 that Guillard's statements were based "only" on her "spiritual intuition" and not on "any objective basis," establishing the legal foundation for the defamation finding.
During the trial, Scofield confronted Guillard directly from the witness stand, stating: "You spoke lies into a camera, about me and my husband. You were making dozens of videos about me, someone you never met, you never talked to, someone you had no connection to. I don't know how anyone could not feel threatened by that level of interest from someone they had never met."
