• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Theranos Founder Elizabeth Holmes Criminal Fraud Charge Update

Gord_in_Toronto said:
I could not find the original TheranosWP thread but this seems like the latest news. (I'm posting here because it never was science).

Elizabeth Holmes’ legal filings suggest a mental-health defense

https://www.theverge.com/2021/8/28/22646130/theranos-elizabeth-holmes-sunny-balwani-abuse-fraud

She appears to be using the "Devil Made Me Do It" defence.
Click to expand...


More specifically, "my boyfriend made me do it."
Former Theranos chief executive Elizabeth Holmes is likely to argue in her criminal trial that abuse by her ex-boyfriend, who was the company’s president, rendered her incapable of making her own decisions, according to documents unsealed in the case early Saturday morning.
Click to expand...
https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2021/08/28/elizabeth-holmes-trial-unsealed-documents/
 
I read the book, Bad Blood, written by the WSJ journalist who really broke all this, John Carryrou (apologize if the spelling is off). He has a new podcast out called Bad Blood: The Final Chapter. He’ll be covering the trial as it happens so I’m glad to have his perspective.

Two episodes are out now. The 2nd one details something not in the book: how Theranos tried to scam investors by capitalizing on the Ebola scare. Holmes and Bulwani approached investors with a crazy claim: they had a test that could detect Ebola even if there were only 5 viruses per milliliter of blood. It wasn’t true, of course, but the details are fascinating.

Can you imagine how hard they would have scammed us all with Covid?
 
gabeygoat said:
Trials and Errors might have made more sense, but I don't mind.
Click to expand...

I suppose so but this started out as a "business" story (more or less). I think the original thread was in "Science, Mathematics, Medicine, and Technology".
 
Seems awfully desperate. I suppose they have to try something, because the evidence of guilt seems to be overwhelming.
 
SuburbanTurkey said:
Seems awfully desperate. I suppose they have to try something, because the evidence of guilt seems to be overwhelming.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I doubt there will be any defence argument against what the prosecution put forward as the events, that evidence is overwhelming so all they are left with is a mitigation defence. These seem much more common in the USA system where plea bargaining seems to have become the usual[ /I]route to a prosecution for many serious and not-so serious crimes.

I'd post more but on the way to the forum a man stole my bag which had all my posts in it, but not my phone, lunch, sports kit and textbooks.
 
Last edited:
SuburbanTurkey said:
Seems awfully desperate. I suppose they have to try something, because the evidence of guilt seems to be overwhelming.
Click to expand...

It's one of those where the whole idea of "due process" becomes a circus and might lead to a couple of criminal psychopaths going free.

It was so obvious from the start that the whole Theranos thing was fake; Holmes and Wassisface cannot but have known this; why all those "clever folk" in Silicon Valley and elsewhere could not spot that it was fake is beyond me, but once the snowball started rolling no-one was going to admit that it was fake for fear of looking daft (pro tip: you all now look more than daft, but also a tad criminal yourselves).

I mean, the whole "It's totally new and no-one else knows how it works; we aren't going to publish in any reputable peer-reviewed journal, but give us a shed load of cash!" approach just screams honesty and truthfulness, doesn't it? Or maybe it does to a whole load of other hucksters and shysters?

I'd be surprised if they let anyone with more than very basic, rudimentary scientific knowledge on to the jury, as they would obviously be biased by dint of knowing that the whole thing was BS piled on BS right from the start.

Can't we just go straight to sentencing? Or is Holmes going to use that highly convenient child as a bargaining chip again?
 
Carrot Flower King said:
It's one of those where the whole idea of "due process" becomes a circus and might lead to a couple of criminal psychopaths going free.

It was so obvious from the start that the whole Theranos thing was fake; Holmes and Wassisface cannot but have known this; why all those "clever folk" in Silicon Valley and elsewhere could not spot that it was fake is beyond me, but once the snowball started rolling no-one was going to admit that it was fake for fear of looking daft (pro tip: you all now look more than daft, but also a tad criminal yourselves).

I mean, the whole "It's totally new and no-one else knows how it works; we aren't going to publish in any reputable peer-reviewed journal, but give us a shed load of cash!" approach just screams honesty and truthfulness, doesn't it? Or maybe it does to a whole load of other hucksters and shysters?

I'd be surprised if they let anyone with more than very basic, rudimentary scientific knowledge on to the jury, as they would obviously be biased by dint of knowing that the whole thing was BS piled on BS right from the start.

Can't we just go straight to sentencing? Or is Holmes going to use that highly convenient child as a bargaining chip again?
Click to expand...

With all the wild fortunes being made in silicon valley, I think there's a lot of FOMO going around that is clouding a lot of people's judgement. Everyone wants to be an early investor in the next Apple or Facebook or whatever. It's very telling how much effort Holmes and the company made to emulate the aesthetic of these famous fortune makers. It's interesting how many people were hoodwinked by someone adopting the affectation of a savant techno-wizard.

It is interesting that none of these people investing huge piles of money ever did the due diligence to see if any of the purported technology even worked.
 
Last edited:
I put part of the blame on the favorable coverage she got from the media, the storyline of a cute blond being the next Bill Gates was irrestiable.
Looks a if she will be exchanging her turtleneck sweaters for an orange jump suit.
 
Reading the book, it seemed like there were a lot of people who should have known to look past the hype and the media coverage, do their own due diligence, and notice the emperor's distinct lack of clothing.
 
I am wondering if Holmes will continue her strange, forced low voice during her testimony. IIRC, people who knew her before her Theranos days insist that it's a put-on and not her real voice.

If she's going for the "my abusive boyfriend made me crazy" defense, I suppose acting normal at the trial would probably be important.
 
theprestige said:
Reading the book, it seemed like there were a lot of people who should have known to look past the hype and the media coverage, do their own due diligence, and notice the emperor's distinct lack of clothing.
Click to expand...


This is exactly my impression.

The claims were, at their core, scientifically improbable, if not outright impossible. I mean 100+ tests from a few drops of blood? Get serious.

They were lying from the get go and this should have been uncovered by any venture capitalist worth their salt.

Really, this exposed the investment community every bit as much as it did the company itself.
 
I seem to recall there was one national service chain - a grocery store, I think - that looked into it, decided it didn't make enough sense, and noped out before getting to the investment stage. Their competitor went all-in and wasted a lot of money on a pipe dream.
 
I have a memory of a Radio 4 programme over here (Evan Davis' The Bottom Line, which is a slot devoted to exploration of business issues) about the whole Theranos thing.

It had me screaming at the radio as they completely ignored the utter scientific implausibility, if not impossibility, of the whole thing, which should have stopped anyone with a brain right at that point, but they all wiffled on about investment decision-making without looking at what should underpin that...

It was, for me, a damaging insight into sections of our education system: Davis was educated at Oxford and Harvard; his guests were the usual bizniz folk, with MBAs; the programme is a co-production with the Open University and no-one seemed at all capable of grasping the flaw right at the start, to the point that Theranos was built on lies was not even mentioned...

At least Fox Mulder wasn't quite that credulous.
 
SuburbanTurkey said:
I am wondering if Holmes will continue her strange, forced low voice during her testimony. IIRC, people who knew her before her Theranos days insist that it's a put-on and not her real voice.

If she's going for the "my abusive boyfriend made me crazy" defense, I suppose acting normal at the trial would probably be important.
Click to expand...

The problem with the abusive boyfriend defense is that the fraud started before Sunny got to the company. I'm having a hard time with a defense of, "My boyfriend made me continue my criminal enterprise that I started before we met".
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom