Unveiling the Alleged Influence of a Blonde Professor on Bryan Kohberger’s Actions

A tarot card-reading influencer is discovering the hefty consequences of spreading false information online, as her case sets a daunting example for creators across digital platforms.

Houston influencer Ashley Guillard gained viral attention in November 2022 after she speculated about the murders of four University of Idaho students via several TikTok videos. In these videos, she inaccurately accused a university professor, Rebecca Scofield, of orchestrating the notorious killings carried out by Bryan Kohberger.

Guillard’s videos occasionally featured her engaging with tarot cards, suggesting that Scofield had a romantic link with one of the victims, Kaylee Goncalves.

Despite receiving multiple cease and desist letters from Scofield, Guillard continued her claims, prompting Scofield to file a defamation lawsuit against her in December 2022.

Fast forward nearly a year, and a federal jury has now decided in favor of Scofield, awarding her $10 million in damages—surpassing the $1 million in compensatory damages that her legal team initially pursued.

For Domenic Romano, managing attorney of Romano Law, PLLC, where he specializes in entertainment law, including advising influencers and content creators, the verdict was a clear message for TikTok sleuths: there are real life consequences for spreading misinformation and making false statements online.

‘What certain content creators, including this one, are finding out is that laws that exist in the real world, laws that journalists or people who write online or people that stand up in parks and speak, those laws still apply in new media, still apply on TikTok, still apply on Instagram, still apply everywhere,’ Romano told the Daily Mail.

He said: ‘The influencer industry has been playing Russian roulette with content for years. This verdict just shows everyone what a bullet looks like.’

Guillard went viral for her assertions about the murders of four University of Idaho students, Kaylee Goncalves (top left), Madison Mogen (bottom left), Xana Kernodle (bottom right), and Kernodle’s boyfriend, Ethan Chapin (top right)

Rebecca Scofield sued Guillard for defamation in December 2022 – now, nearly four years later, a federal jury has awarded Scofield $10 million in damages

On TikTok, Guillard made true crime videos where she sometimes consulted tarot cards as a part of her theorizing

As Romano pointed out: ‘Just because you’re on a platform doesn’t mean that you don’t have to respect the law.’

‘This case does something that Federal Trade Commission disclosures and copyright notices never quite managed to do – it makes a creator genuinely aware of the legal consequences of what they say. I think other content creators, other influencers, can see that and think twice about being reckless.’

The rise of the armchair detective has skyrocketed in recent years as the ravenous appetite for true crime has intersected with the ubiquity and growing influence of social media.

From TikTok sleuths weighing in on the Gabby Petito case to streamers camping outside Nancy Guthrie’s house in Tucson, Arizona, true crime content creators have now become a constant presence when it comes to investigations and crime cases.

While these content creators may have a true interest in the cases that investigators and journalists are covering, there are few guardrails to ensure that these amateur investigators are upholding any codes of ethics or laws in place to prevent misinformation or false statements.

Indeed, the veracity of much of the content created under the umbrella ‘true crime’ is far from guaranteed. Conspiracies are presented as ‘fact’ and gain traction by virtue of nothing more concrete than repetition.

True crime is already a space notorious for sensationalism and it’s not difficult to see how some content creators who are hungry for boosting their following, or getting money and clout, may compromise the integrity of their content in the name of clicks and likes.

Bryan Kohberger pleaded guilty to the murders of all four students in July 2025

TikTok sleuths and armchair detectives notoriously weighed in on the Gabby Petito case

True crime streamers have camped outside of Nancy Guthrie’s (right) house since she went missing in early 2026

TikTok creator Ken Waks, learned that even the best of intentions can backfire when entering the true crime space.

Waks, a popular Chicago-based creator, started an investigation of his own, charting his theories on his TikTok account.

In spring of 2023, Waks began theorizing about the existence of a potential serial killer after at least four men in the Chicago area were reported missing, then found drowned. 

Waks alleged that during this time, he was approached twice by strangers offering him a free ride while he was leaving a bar at night, leading him to theorize that free late-night rides where drivers drugged the victims could be a factor in the drowning cases. 

After Waks discovered that there were similar drowning cases in Austin, he speculated that they were part of a larger and more sinister killing spree.

His videos on the topic soon went viral and regularly received millions of views and netted Waks thousands of new followers.

Waks even claimed that he was approached by a private investigator to be a part of a team looking into a murder theory about the ‘Smiley Face Killings,’ a longtime true crime theory that alleges that a series of drownings of young men were not accidental, but the work of a serial killer or killers. 

However, despite Waks’ swift rise as TikTok’s favorite sleuth, he just as quickly experienced major backlash after he mentioned one of his day job gigs in advertising tech, which led to people online accusing him of attempting to profiteer off his content.

‘Gaining clout off of people’s misfortunes, especially people who are murdered and their families are not at peace is one of the most horrible things,’ said Justin Burnett, a former military police investigator and interrogator for the US Army in a 2023 TikTok video critiquing Waks.

Unlike Guillard, Waks was never accused of spreading falsehoods but his ethics and motivations were questions and, in the time since the fallout of the video, he has mostly steered clear of the true crime space. When he does make content about it, he’s careful not to wade into theorizing or making unsubstantiated claims.

‘Obviously true crime has become an incredibly popular form of media, but there’s a difference between explainer content and a theory and outright accusations, which is what Ashley did,’ Waks told the Daily Mail.

‘If you’re going to be doing something that’s evolving in live time, you need to be incredibly mindful. It’s a much larger risk that we’re starting to see the repercussions of in the social media age, especially on platforms that prioritize outrage and extreme takes probably more than they ever have.’

Content creator Ken Waks thinks Guillard’s case is a cautionary tale for TikTok sleuths

Tom Brennan, a private investigator who formerly worked as an investigator for law enforcement, has seen firsthand how true crime content and amateur detectives can derail investigations. He warns those who are in the true crime space to leave the crime solving to the professionals.

‘You stand to lose a good case by doing something like this, by falsely accusing someone,’ Brennan told the Daily Mail. ‘It can cause investigative misdirection and all you’re going to do is convolute good evidence, real evidence and disrupt an investigation.’

For veteran crime journalist Susan Hendricks, the host of Headline Crime and the author of Down the Hill: My Descent Into the Double Murder in Delphi, the ruling highlights what’s often missing in true crime content: concern and care for the people impacted by the case.

She hopes that the $10 million damages that Guillard will have to pay signals to content creators what’s really at stake when they make videos carelessly.

‘I think that this case will really set the standard,’ Hendricks told the Daily Mail. ‘I think it had to be extreme for other content creators to look and say, “Maybe I won’t say that or do that against that person,” because it’s really easy to hide behind the keyboard and to say whatever you want when you don’t know how it affects the person.

‘I think the effect of this lawsuit is that it will change what people decide to post or have them pause if they’re thinking of hurting the family or putting out blatant lies.’

For Scofield, the verdict was a clear validation that there are consequences for unsubstantiated claims.

In a statement to the Daily Mail, Scofield wrote: ‘I want to thank the jury for their time and attention to this case. The judge had already ruled as a matter of law that the statements were false.

‘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.

‘The murders of the four students on November 13, 2022, was the darkest chapter in our university’s history. This decision shows that respect and care should always be granted to victims during these tragedies. I am hopeful that this difficult chapter in my life is over and I can return to a more normal life with my family and the wonderful Moscow community.’

Yet, despite the $10 million damages she now owes, Guillard, said she’s undeterred from continuing to post. 

Despite the millions she now owes in damages, Guillard, said she’s undeterred from continuing to post

On a new TikTok account, she’s already made multiple posts outlining her own case and maintains that her false claims against Scofield were only because she wanted to ‘help’ with the investigation, using her ‘gift’ of reading tarot cards.

‘I will post content going forward,’ she told the Daily Mail. ‘Obviously, I’ll be more careful with speaking names and putting myself in a position where I can be targeted for my content, but I don’t perceive myself not making any more content at all just because someone sued me.’

She said: ‘I expect people to have their own minds and to come to their own conclusions.’

Perhaps that expectation is at the heart of the problem – the assertion that conclusions are the responsibility of the recipient not the content creator.

Because Guillard presented as fact claims that were, in truth, utterly baseless and could reasonably lead to just one conclusion.

And, while many of the theories asserted online may be little more than fabrications, as Scofield’s recent victory has made crystal clear, the impact of encouraging speculation and engagement on platforms that reach millions, is very real.