Personally I don't see how you can say he knew it to be false given his reputation as a conspiracy theorist.
You can't both think he is crazy and think that he knew it to be false, that would assume he is rational.
Hanlon's razor and all that.
To prove that he slandered them you have to prove that he knew it was false.
If someone truly believes what they are saying, it's not defamation.
What I'm saying is his record and his attitude all indicated he truly believed it, imo.
The same people calling him crazy / a conspiracy theorist are saying he did it with malice / intent.
Those are contradicting beliefs.
The dude figured out a way to personally profit off the murder of a bunch of 6-year-olds by calling them all actors and then mercilessly targeting their families for harassment. It was beyond malicious: one of the most heinously sadistic patterns of behavior in American history. Your defense of it is grotesque.
With any luck, criminal charges will eventually catch up with him and he’ll spend many years in prison.
What specifics in the trial made it clear that he comprehends reality but acted "psychopathic" on purpose?