University of Idaho Murders Yield Libel Lawsuit Against "Internet Sleuth"

According to the Complaint, "Ashley Guillard promotes herself on Amazon and TikTok as an Internet sleuth that solves high-profile unsolved murders by consulting Tarot cards, and performing other readings, to obtain information about the murders."

From the Complaint in Scofield v. Guillard (D. Idaho), filed yesterday:

In November 2022, four students at the University of Idaho were murdered at a home near the campus. The tragedy has garnered attention, and inflicted great sorrow, throughout the University, the State, and the country. Defendant Ashley Guillard—a purported internet sleuth—decided to use the community's pain for her online self-promotion. She has posted many videos on TikTok falsely stating that Plaintiff Rebecca Scofield (a professor at the University) participated in the murders because she was romantically involved with one of the victims. Guillard's statements are false. Professor Scofield did not participate in the murders, and she had never met any of the victims, let alone entered a romantic relationship with them. Guillard's videos have been viewed millions of times, amplifying Guillard's online persona at the expense of Professor Scofield's reputation. Professor Scofield now sues Guillard for defamation….

None of the four students who were murdered ever took a class from Professor Scofield. Although the University of Idaho is a relatively small university, she does not recall ever meeting any one of these students….

Ashley Guillard promotes herself on Amazon and TikTok as an Internet sleuth that solves high-profile unsolved murders by consulting Tarot cards, and performing other readings, to obtain information about the murders. She has purported to solve the murders of musician Kirshnik Khari Ball (a.k.a. Takeoff), Shanquella Robinson, Tiffany Valiante, Kevin Samuels, and the November murders at the University of Idaho.

Comments

[John F. Carr]

Docket here: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/66679739/scofield-v-guillard/

[John F. Carr]

It is unstated whether the videos clearly disclosed that they were based on no more than Tarot card readings and Internet searches. I think damages should be less if they did disclose that fact because fewer people would believe them.

[Dr. Ed 2]

It's not just that, aren't Tarot cards a religious practice?
If so, then it muddies the waters.

And what if she's half right?
Two girls in bed together, multiple calls from ex-boyfriend's phone.
Hmmm....

[CJColucci]

That's probably true, if things go that far.

[gormadoc]

16% of people have an IQ <85 and tarot/astrology/new age shit are back in vogue right now. More people than you'd expect believe it.

[dwshelf]

So if you're clearly irrational, does that mean you can't be sued for defamation?

[Gandydancer]

If you can damage someone’s reputation with a false claim then you can defame them, IMHO. But if she’s so clearly a nut that no one believes her then nothing she cays can be defamation. But it’s hard to be so nutty that no one at all will believe you and apparently a lot of stupid people do take her seriously.

[post hoc ergo propter hoc]

yeah, it's all about her audience and their expectations, coupled with fact it's a newsworthy event, etc gives it more protection. I'd feel pretty good about it as plaintiff, though. If it gets past MTD & MSJ a jury will probably punish that craziness pretty hard. In my state there was a case where nutty person put up posters implicating random guy in murder and that was protected speech bc newsworthy, etc and for some other state specific stuff that I can't recall. This seems more egregious but i don't know Idaho's quirks, sounds like a good case, though.

[Gandydancer]

The fact that it’s a newsworthy event doesn’t make every individual more or less in the vicinity into a public figure who you can pick out at random and defame. “The Tarot cards told me it was her” doesn’t seem to me likely to overcome that.

[Gandydancer]

Is a nutty inability to recognize that you are engaged in a reckless disregard for the truth supposed to be a complete defense against the charge that you did so?

[post hoc ergo propter hoc]

newsworthy =/= public figure. those concepts are entirely different. newsworthy events/ matters of public concern have higher protections.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Yes, but wouldn't you have to prove you're not the murderer?
And how do you do that?

[David Nieporent]

You testify, "I am not the murderer."

[TwelveInchPianist]

That's exactly what the murderer would say!

[CJColucci]

But if she’s so clearly a nut that no one believes her then nothing she cays can be defamation.

No harm no foul? I've been wondering if we aren't edging toward a ''libel-proof defendant" doctrine. There is a "libel-proof plaintiff" doctrine, which holds that if the plaintiff's reputation is bad enough the defamatory statement doesn't matter. (I suppose there is a requirement that the defamatory statement be about something for which the plaintiff already has a bad reputation. Adolph Hitler, who loved dogs, might be able to sue over false claims that he abused his pets, despite his general loathsomeness.)
I started to think of a libel-proof defendant doctrine when reading between the lines of a defamation case against Donald Trump.

[StephenM]

The Fox news defence!

[Kleppe]

"defence"

Silence, European.

[darkknight9]

Blast from the past! I thought the phenomenon of Psychic Detectives was mostly a thing of the past. What folks will do for a buck...

[Michael D]

This seems to be the only thing of a legal nature to come out of these murders. I say that as a negative.

[Dr. Ed 2]

She may be half right -- this may be a lesbian love triangle.

What I found interesting was that (a) two of the female victims were found in bed together, and that (b) multiple unanswered cell phone calls were made from an ex-boyfriend's cell phone and another one associated with him, and (c) Professor Schofield "work[s] with students and activists on issues of gender and sexuality in [her] home state of Idaho. As an Assistant Professor of American History at the University of Idaho, [she teaches] courses on gender and race in the US West, women in American society, and gender and body culture."

See: https://wgs.fas.harvard.edu/people/rebecca-scofield

There is a lot of stuff that we don't understand, and I've seen professors convince female undergrads -- in healthy relationships with boyfriends they loved -- that they actually were lesbians and their boyfriends actually rapists.

So what if the psychic is half right -- that Scofield is involved because she convinced one of the victims to dump her boyfriend, who then murdered her? (NB "involved" psychically, not legally.)

[Noscitur a sociis]

Just in case the psychic TikTok videos weren’t stupid enough for you, here come Dr. Ed!

[David Nieporent]

To make them seem more reliable by comparison?

[Estragon]

“ and I’ve seen professors convince female undergrads — in healthy relationships with boyfriends they loved — that they actually were lesbians and their boyfriends actually rapists.”

Another just-so anecdote from the guy at the end of the bar at a Nashua Buffalo Wild Wings. Oh really Ed? How many times have you “seen” that?

[David Nieporent]

Better question is how he would have seen that. Let's suppose that some professor somewhere once did this. Did she inexplicably have this conversation in Dr. Ed's broom closet, rather than in her own office?

[gormadoc]

He sees it all the time, on websites with names that end in XXX.

[David Nieporent]

I mean, I see where you're going with that, but I think that would require Dr. Ed to actually do research before posting a comment.

[gormadoc]

In case anybody is wondering about the specifics about how she thinks she learns her info, she believes her spirit, as a manifestation/portion/something of God, was there and that tarot is how her body learns this stuff from her spirit. Pretty normal new age crap.

https://www.tiktok.com/@ashleyisinthebookoflife/video/7173453851113082154?is_copy_url=1&is_from_webapp=v1&lang=en

[Drbusybody]

This is the top story on Fox right now. The tortfeasor says she won't stop. Of the professor, she asks, "if she's so innocent, why does she need three lawyers?"

https://www.foxnews.com/us/idaho-murders-university-professor-sues-tiktok-cyber-sleuth-accused-her-campus-killings