5 ms·

'Concerned Citizen'at Theranos CEO Elizabeth Holmes Trial Turns Out to Be Family

105 points by randycupertino 5y ago

Avicebron 5y ago
Just bizarre
theogravity 5y ago
Someone tell me why this is newsworthy and should even be on HN? It's a family member sitting in the galley observing the trial from what I'm reading here. He is refusing to disclose his relationship to Holmes when the media asks. Edit: Love how someone flagged my comment when I'm asking a legitimate question. Rather than flag the comment, respond with an answer as to why this belongs in HN.
chihuahua 5y ago
I'm not sure if there is much of a point to this story. A guy shows up at the trial and tells all kinds of lies to reporters about who he is and why he's there. That doesn't seem to have much relevance to or impact on the trial itself. On the other hand, it's mildly amusing that there's more lying being added to the Theranos story.
- filoleg 5y ago
  >and tells all kinds of lies to reporters about who he is and why he's there And also asking reporters' takes on Elizabeth Holmes, and then trying to "correct" them by saying that everyone just copypastes the initial story, and no one has told the real truth behind Theranos (implying that Elizabeth is innocent and gets blamed unfairly). Keep in mind, those weren't random reporters, those were reporters who were lining up to be juries on the trial. I think it is pretty newsworthy that one of the accused parties' family members decided to mislead potential juries under a fake identity outside of the courthouse.
  - cma 5y ago
    Are you sure they weren't there reporting on the jury selection? A bunch of reporters lining up to be juries on the trial while writing articles on it? That doesn't make any sense.
  - chihuahua 5y ago
    I don't think the reporters were going to be jurors. I read the article again and it doesn't say that, as far as I can tell.
    - filoleg 5y ago
      Apologies, I've re-read it again, and it seems like I completely misinterpreted the line where it said "Over the course of two days of jury selection, he gabbed with reporters standing in line to get in the courthouse". Now that I am re-reading it, it definitely seems like I've made a bad assumption there.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
- alphabetting 5y ago
  A defendant's father in law who happens to be a hotel magnate lying to a bunch of reporters at her trial trying to sway coverage is most definitely newsworthy. It doesn't need to have an impact on the trial to be newsworthy.
  - filoleg 5y ago
    not just lying to reporters, but lying under a fake identity and then trying to deny it halfway through. Why would he use a fake identity and then try to cover it up, if he was doing nothing wrong and just going about his business as usual?
    - randycupertino 5y ago
      > lying under a fake identity and then trying to deny it halfway through. Why would he use a fake identity and then try to cover it up, The whole debacle is just bonkers. I agree the story might be mere "human interest" but imo it certainly is interesting! His behavior fits with the whole gestalt of fraud, entitlement and deception.
    - throwawaylinux 5y ago
      Journalists mislead and lie as a matter of course during investigations and in their stories. This guy needn't have been doing anything "wrong" to want to mislead them or lie to them. It might have been hamfisted, but I admire the chutzpah. Definitely an amusing news story, it's like something out of a Seinfeld episode.
    - tpoacher 5y ago
      He was lying to reporters. Not to police or a judge. You are under no obligation to not lie to a reporter. In fact, it used to be, that a reporter's job was to get to the truth, and that skill used to be admired and celebrated. Now it seems they're so flabbergasted when someone lies to one they decide to publish a story about it.
- riazrizvi 5y ago
  It’s news when we onlookers are weighing up the defendant’s argument that they weren’t trying to do fraud but were instead caught up in an abusive relationship by her boyfriend at the time who was the real fraudster. Having the father of your current boyfriend do more fraud schenanigans on your behalf undermines that defense for me.
  - gfodor 5y ago
    If my daughter in law and mother of my grandchild was on trial that could lead to prison I wouldn’t be above doing things that were legal but unethical to try to tilt the scales to prevent my grandchild from losing their mother.
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
    - Barrin92 5y ago
      I wouldn't even defend my own daughter, let alone my daughter in law if it turned out she sold fraudulent tests to cancer patients.[1]. I would never defend anyone, family or otherwise if they threaten the health of seriously ill patients. Do you see how morally deprived that is? Mate I'm not even sure she had that kid for any other reason than to tilt the trial in her favor, and elicit exactly this response [1]https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-patients-hurt-by-theranos-1476973026 https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-patients-hurt-by-theranos-1...
      - BearOso 5y ago
        I agree. There was speculation a long time ago that she would use a pregnancy for sympathy. The woman is a sociopath. I doubt she cares about the child as anything other than a tool to get out of trouble.
      - gfodor 5y ago
        The point isn't that he's defending her, he's defending his grandkid. Morality is tricky when it comes to your obligation towards protecting innocent family members. Specifically if there are legal actions you can take to potentially influence the trial, which is the authority, towards more lenient sentencing to protect your grandchildren.
- joe_the_user 5y ago
  The story of Elizabeth Holmes is obviously more than just whether she will be found guilty or innocent. The story involves the web of connections that allowed her to achieve the dubious things she achieved and wealthy supporters are clearly relevant to that. Of course, the existence of some powerful supporters conceivably could have an impact on her trial too, even if the simple that his guy showing up by itself probably won't.
- perl4ever 5y ago
  I was struck by something else. Who describes someone's family as their "entourage"?
  - gowld 5y ago
    Someone who doesn't know the precise identities of everyone in the group following her around, or someone describing a diverse group of associates. This is completely normal langauge.
  - boomboomsubban 5y ago
    There may have been non-family members also in that group but not in the photo.
    - perl4ever 5y ago
      Sure. Lots of things are possible. But what was written was that the group was her family members and then it was called an "entourage". Which is odd as it stands. It could well be sloppy writing or an editing mishap. However, it felt to me like it might signify an awkward attempt to dehumanize her and her family, since that was the overall theme of the article.
  - dylan604 5y ago
    Does your family travel with you everywhere you go for work, play, any appearance? Was Johnny Drama part of Vince's entourage? It would be easy to consider someone's relative as part of the entourage while other relatives just a relative.
    - perl4ever 5y ago
      Sorry, my point was apparently unclear. I don't know who was in the group. Maybe the writer does, or maybe they don't. Maybe it was just her family, maybe it wasn't. However, the entourage is described as being her family members immediately prior. Speculating about the facts doesn't improve the writing (or the editing if that's at fault). It is what it is presented as, unless you were there or something.
- ryanisnan 5y ago
  She seems like enough of a fraud to have concocted this strange angle. In any old case, I would probably attribute this to an insignificant occurrence. In a case involving deception, I am highly suspicious.
- 015a 5y ago
  Despite Bobby Allyn's insistence on saying he lied; he isn't reporting any evidence of it. Misleading, maybe, though one has to follow to be led. Evasive, absolutely. That's not lying. Alright, maybe his statement that he fixed old cars "for a living" could fade into being called a lie, or at least stated with intent to mislead. It really feels like, some third-rate reporter got angry about being hoodwinked, and decided to get back at him by writing a puffy hit-piece. Really ugly look for NPR; this isn't news or even noteworthy.
  - joe_the_user 5y ago
    So you're saying this guy "hoodwinked" the reporter but didn't lie? Maybe this guy only misdirected. What going on is significant. In fact, that changes nothing. The story is that wealthy and powerful person showed up at the Holmes trial and made an effort to misdirect reporters. Whether he made overt factual untruths is irrelevant unless you the logic of a third grader.
  - quantified 5y ago
    Isn’t telling someone your name is Hanson when it’s not lying?
  - csilverman 5y ago
    It’s noteworthy because it’s bizarre behavior and he’s related to her. The question is how noteworthy. I tend to doubt there’s any sinister plot afoot here, or that it’ll have any impact on the trial. He probably wanted to attend the trial, knows she’s toxic, and was worried that any association with her might affect his businesses. But yeah, I think her father-in-law appearing at the trial in a flimsy disguise and giving ham-fistedly evasive responses is definitely worth a mention, even if it’s not legally actionable or related to the trial itself.
    - Brian_K_White 5y ago
      "It’s noteworthy because it’s bizarre behavior and he’s related to her." It's not noteworthy because it's bizarre behavior. It is specifically relevant behavior. This entire case is only about determining if she is guilty of engaging in exactly this behavior. We should all thank the guy for providing such a great example of why not to believe any story her and her lawyers cook up.
- quantified 5y ago
  "It's too ironic," said Griffith of the Times. "That Elizabeth Holmes is on trial for fraud and the media has this whole two days of interaction with someone who was misrepresenting themselves from her extended family." Just a shady group.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- RickJWagner 5y ago
  NPR has made a niche for itself using 'human angles' to the story. They're not hard-hitting, they're not politically unbiased, they just make the soft sell for the Reader's Digest crowd. It's good business. They've found an audience, they intend to keep it.
RcouF1uZ4gsC 5y ago
From seeing all the things about Elizabeth Holmes, it seems that this is someone who is an ongoing danger to society. She is a complete psychopath who takes advantage of every human emotion and predisposition to benefit herself without any thought of what damage she is causing others. Every action of hers seems so calculating (similar to Ted Buddy from what I have read). I hope she gets a very long prison sentence.
- YeBanKo 5y ago
  No, all the enablers are danger to society.
  - throwawaysea 5y ago
    Who are the enablers in your view? I know there were many noteworthy investors and names attached to Theranos as a strategy to give it credibility and momentum. But in the end wasn’t it enabled by just us, the everyday people? Everyone ate up the Fortune cover story and every outlet from news media to Facebook to LinkedIn leveraged Elizabeth Holmes as a beacon for Diversity, Inclusion, and Equity. The author of that cover story also may have been a victim, or so he claimed in a follow up article (https://fortune.com/2015/12/17/how-theranos-misled-me-elizabeth-holmes/ https://fortune.com/2015/12/17/how-theranos-misled-me-elizab...). I see Holmes and other key associates as those primarily at fault in this saga, but hold the public secondarily responsible for eating it all up so uncritically.
robinsoh 5y ago
My guess is that it is because Theranos came out of Stanford, was a Silicon Valley darling for a bit. I know that PG had said "people like Elizabeth Holmes are actually rarer there than in the rest of the business world, or in politics." which I would agree with but SV does give such people a leverage factor that they can't get in the rest of world. I'm fairly certain Elizabeth Holmes couldn't have achieved the level of bizarre impact she had anywhere else but Palo Alto. I also have a genuine fear that her Svengali defense is going to succeed and that will harm all women entrepreneurs in a deep and consequential way.
- CyrusL 5y ago
  Theranos was not a Silicon Valley darling. I don't think there were any big SV venture funds involved. It was people like Ruport Murdoch, Henry Kissinger, George Shultz, and James Mattis investing and sitting on the board.
  - austinhutch 5y ago
    Tim Draper is a major SV personality and an early investor in Theranos lending it legitimacy.
    - wp381640 5y ago
      He cut her a personal check for $100k when she was 19 and didn't have much of a company because he liked her. Not following up on that investment is a pretty strong signal
  - robinsoh 5y ago
    > Theranos was not a Silicon Valley darling Please allow to present some exhibits. https://www.businessinsider.com/the-history-of-silicon-valley-unicorn-theranos-and-ceo-elizabeth-holmes-2018-5 https://www.businessinsider.com/the-history-of-silicon-valle... "Theranos, the blood-testing startup that went from Silicon Valley darling to facing fraud charges" https://www.cnbctv18.com/business/from-silicon-valley-darling-to-fraud-accused-the-rise-and-fall-of-theranos-founder-elizabeth-holmes-10659411.htm https://www.cnbctv18.com/business/from-silicon-valley-darlin... "From Silicon Valley darling to fraud accused" https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2021/aug/28/elizabeth-holmes-theranos-trial-john-carreyrou https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2021/aug/28/elizabeth... " the Silicon Valley darling said could perform a variety of medical tests with just a drop of blood" Don Lucas. Larry Ellison. Oracle. As I said, Elizabeth Holmes being pretty much from Silicon Valley royalty was key to the leverage she managed to achieve. I'll be surprised if she's found guilty.
themodelplumber 5y ago
Looking past the eccentricities, he's clearly a nuanced thinker with regard to humanity and human values. This is easy to tell by examining both his viewpoint that the media is being shallow, and that one can't really know this person (Holmes). Protecting those he's closest to, as well. Watch this guy, he will bare his teeth more often after this event of exposure. He is going to protect her blindspot (frankly: morality in general) with his deepening-fractal viewpoint on right and wrong.
swang 5y ago
You just have to kind of laugh at this.. people willing to be this sociopathic for possible minimal gain. Like their risk/reward is completely off-balance because the risk can always be mitigated by having a lot of money. Reward: some reporters fall for your everyman spiel and manner and write a nicer article about Holmes Risk: you're found out and... nothing. nothing happens to you because you're rich and its not like your career is in jeopardy. I guess when you're super rich you never have any consequences to doing stuff like this so why not try it? Worse that can happen is you get an article written about you.
- hollerith 5y ago
  >nothing happens to you because you're rich What do you believe happens to non-rich people who lie to reporters when accosted by reporters in public?
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
allears 5y ago
Lends credence to the idea that Holmes and everybody she associates with have a very casual association with the truth. This guy may not be directly involved with the trial, but he certainly isn't helping her case any.
- throwaway81523 5y ago
  Makes me think of a quote from the Berezovsky trial a while back: The judge concurred, concluding, “I found Mr Berezovsky an unimpressive, and inherently unreliable, witness, who regarded truth as a transitory, flexible concept, which could be moulded to suit his current purposes.” Berezovsky lost. (From Guardian profile of Jonathan Sumption, https://www.theguardian.com/law/2015/aug/06/jonathan-sumption-brain-of-britain https://www.theguardian.com/law/2015/aug/06/jonathan-sumptio... . That quote has always stuck with me since it describes so many of the different dweebs who we all run into).
- quantified 5y ago
  Baby granddaddy has an interest in the outcome.
antattack 5y ago
This man is obviously Holmes' admirer. He likely sees nothing wrong with telling people half-truths.
- quantified 5y ago
  He’s family. But maybe he’s playing a deeper con that the media fell for. We’ll see.
mdoms 5y ago
This doesn't really seem like an interesting story to me. It has no bearing on the case or the outcome or anything else really. Just some weird tangentially-related guy lied about who he is.
- randycupertino 5y ago
  He's her father-in-law, not exactly tangential relations.
ryanisnan 5y ago
Ok, HackerNews has either a serious algorithm ranking issue, or there is something super sketchy going on. *Edit: I should say I have no reason to distrust HN admins, merely stating the two possibilities. This post is more recent, has more points, and more activity, yet is considerably below older posts with less engagement. I expect pg or dang to chime in here. https://i.imgur.com/4ExBw4L.png https://i.imgur.com/4ExBw4L.png
- randycupertino 5y ago
  I think (but correct me if I'm wrong) that sometimes HN puts "controversial" articles - like, I'm guessing this one could be construed as?- on the second page automatically? Not entirely sure why but I think I remember dang mentioning that one time.
  - ryanisnan 5y ago
    I think you might be right, but on the topic - two things: to those who would downvote me when this is unexplained - your behaviour is silly. If I am wrong, please explain. Second, to have opaque ajudication on things is not in the best interest of this community. Posts that are penalized in this manner should have a post indicating as such.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
hiyer 5y ago
I'm no fan of Holmes or Theranos, but I have to say it would be weird if Holmes goes to jail when the Sacklers not only stayed out but got to keep their billions too. The law works in mysterious ways.
- whymauri 5y ago
  Not weird, simply a correction of errors.

Just bizarre

Someone tell me why this is newsworthy and should even be on HN? It's a family member sitting in the galley observing the trial from what I'm reading here. He is refusing to disclose his relationship to Holmes when the media asks. Edit: Love how someone flagged my comment when I'm asking a legitimate question. Rather than flag the comment, respond with an answer as to why this belongs in HN.

chihuahua 5y ago

I'm not sure if there is much of a point to this story. A guy shows up at the trial and tells all kinds of lies to reporters about who he is and why he's there. That doesn't seem to have much relevance to or impact on the trial itself. On the other hand, it's mildly amusing that there's more lying being added to the Theranos story.

filoleg 5y ago
>and tells all kinds of lies to reporters about who he is and why he's there And also asking reporters' takes on Elizabeth Holmes, and then trying to "correct" them by saying that everyone just copypastes the initial story, and no one has told the real truth behind Theranos (implying that Elizabeth is innocent and gets blamed unfairly). Keep in mind, those weren't random reporters, those were reporters who were lining up to be juries on the trial. I think it is pretty newsworthy that one of the accused parties' family members decided to mislead potential juries under a fake identity outside of the courthouse.
- cma 5y ago
  Are you sure they weren't there reporting on the jury selection? A bunch of reporters lining up to be juries on the trial while writing articles on it? That doesn't make any sense.
- chihuahua 5y ago
  I don't think the reporters were going to be jurors. I read the article again and it doesn't say that, as far as I can tell.
  - filoleg 5y ago
    Apologies, I've re-read it again, and it seems like I completely misinterpreted the line where it said "Over the course of two days of jury selection, he gabbed with reporters standing in line to get in the courthouse". Now that I am re-reading it, it definitely seems like I've made a bad assumption there.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
alphabetting 5y ago
A defendant's father in law who happens to be a hotel magnate lying to a bunch of reporters at her trial trying to sway coverage is most definitely newsworthy. It doesn't need to have an impact on the trial to be newsworthy.
- filoleg 5y ago
  not just lying to reporters, but lying under a fake identity and then trying to deny it halfway through. Why would he use a fake identity and then try to cover it up, if he was doing nothing wrong and just going about his business as usual?
  - randycupertino 5y ago
    > lying under a fake identity and then trying to deny it halfway through. Why would he use a fake identity and then try to cover it up, The whole debacle is just bonkers. I agree the story might be mere "human interest" but imo it certainly is interesting! His behavior fits with the whole gestalt of fraud, entitlement and deception.
  - throwawaylinux 5y ago
    Journalists mislead and lie as a matter of course during investigations and in their stories. This guy needn't have been doing anything "wrong" to want to mislead them or lie to them. It might have been hamfisted, but I admire the chutzpah. Definitely an amusing news story, it's like something out of a Seinfeld episode.
  - tpoacher 5y ago
    He was lying to reporters. Not to police or a judge. You are under no obligation to not lie to a reporter. In fact, it used to be, that a reporter's job was to get to the truth, and that skill used to be admired and celebrated. Now it seems they're so flabbergasted when someone lies to one they decide to publish a story about it.
riazrizvi 5y ago
It’s news when we onlookers are weighing up the defendant’s argument that they weren’t trying to do fraud but were instead caught up in an abusive relationship by her boyfriend at the time who was the real fraudster. Having the father of your current boyfriend do more fraud schenanigans on your behalf undermines that defense for me.
- gfodor 5y ago
  If my daughter in law and mother of my grandchild was on trial that could lead to prison I wouldn’t be above doing things that were legal but unethical to try to tilt the scales to prevent my grandchild from losing their mother.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - Barrin92 5y ago
    I wouldn't even defend my own daughter, let alone my daughter in law if it turned out she sold fraudulent tests to cancer patients.[1]. I would never defend anyone, family or otherwise if they threaten the health of seriously ill patients. Do you see how morally deprived that is? Mate I'm not even sure she had that kid for any other reason than to tilt the trial in her favor, and elicit exactly this response [1]https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-patients-hurt-by-theranos-1476973026 https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-patients-hurt-by-theranos-1...
    - BearOso 5y ago
      I agree. There was speculation a long time ago that she would use a pregnancy for sympathy. The woman is a sociopath. I doubt she cares about the child as anything other than a tool to get out of trouble.
    - gfodor 5y ago
      The point isn't that he's defending her, he's defending his grandkid. Morality is tricky when it comes to your obligation towards protecting innocent family members. Specifically if there are legal actions you can take to potentially influence the trial, which is the authority, towards more lenient sentencing to protect your grandchildren.
joe_the_user 5y ago
The story of Elizabeth Holmes is obviously more than just whether she will be found guilty or innocent. The story involves the web of connections that allowed her to achieve the dubious things she achieved and wealthy supporters are clearly relevant to that. Of course, the existence of some powerful supporters conceivably could have an impact on her trial too, even if the simple that his guy showing up by itself probably won't.
perl4ever 5y ago
I was struck by something else. Who describes someone's family as their "entourage"?
- gowld 5y ago
  Someone who doesn't know the precise identities of everyone in the group following her around, or someone describing a diverse group of associates. This is completely normal langauge.
- boomboomsubban 5y ago
  There may have been non-family members also in that group but not in the photo.
  - perl4ever 5y ago
    Sure. Lots of things are possible. But what was written was that the group was her family members and then it was called an "entourage". Which is odd as it stands. It could well be sloppy writing or an editing mishap. However, it felt to me like it might signify an awkward attempt to dehumanize her and her family, since that was the overall theme of the article.
- dylan604 5y ago
  Does your family travel with you everywhere you go for work, play, any appearance? Was Johnny Drama part of Vince's entourage? It would be easy to consider someone's relative as part of the entourage while other relatives just a relative.
  - perl4ever 5y ago
    Sorry, my point was apparently unclear. I don't know who was in the group. Maybe the writer does, or maybe they don't. Maybe it was just her family, maybe it wasn't. However, the entourage is described as being her family members immediately prior. Speculating about the facts doesn't improve the writing (or the editing if that's at fault). It is what it is presented as, unless you were there or something.
ryanisnan 5y ago
She seems like enough of a fraud to have concocted this strange angle. In any old case, I would probably attribute this to an insignificant occurrence. In a case involving deception, I am highly suspicious.
015a 5y ago
Despite Bobby Allyn's insistence on saying he lied; he isn't reporting any evidence of it. Misleading, maybe, though one has to follow to be led. Evasive, absolutely. That's not lying. Alright, maybe his statement that he fixed old cars "for a living" could fade into being called a lie, or at least stated with intent to mislead. It really feels like, some third-rate reporter got angry about being hoodwinked, and decided to get back at him by writing a puffy hit-piece. Really ugly look for NPR; this isn't news or even noteworthy.
- joe_the_user 5y ago
  So you're saying this guy "hoodwinked" the reporter but didn't lie? Maybe this guy only misdirected. What going on is significant. In fact, that changes nothing. The story is that wealthy and powerful person showed up at the Holmes trial and made an effort to misdirect reporters. Whether he made overt factual untruths is irrelevant unless you the logic of a third grader.
- quantified 5y ago
  Isn’t telling someone your name is Hanson when it’s not lying?
- csilverman 5y ago
  It’s noteworthy because it’s bizarre behavior and he’s related to her. The question is how noteworthy. I tend to doubt there’s any sinister plot afoot here, or that it’ll have any impact on the trial. He probably wanted to attend the trial, knows she’s toxic, and was worried that any association with her might affect his businesses. But yeah, I think her father-in-law appearing at the trial in a flimsy disguise and giving ham-fistedly evasive responses is definitely worth a mention, even if it’s not legally actionable or related to the trial itself.
  - Brian_K_White 5y ago
    "It’s noteworthy because it’s bizarre behavior and he’s related to her." It's not noteworthy because it's bizarre behavior. It is specifically relevant behavior. This entire case is only about determining if she is guilty of engaging in exactly this behavior. We should all thank the guy for providing such a great example of why not to believe any story her and her lawyers cook up.
quantified 5y ago
"It's too ironic," said Griffith of the Times. "That Elizabeth Holmes is on trial for fraud and the media has this whole two days of interaction with someone who was misrepresenting themselves from her extended family." Just a shady group.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
RickJWagner 5y ago
NPR has made a niche for itself using 'human angles' to the story. They're not hard-hitting, they're not politically unbiased, they just make the soft sell for the Reader's Digest crowd. It's good business. They've found an audience, they intend to keep it.

RcouF1uZ4gsC 5y ago

From seeing all the things about Elizabeth Holmes, it seems that this is someone who is an ongoing danger to society. She is a complete psychopath who takes advantage of every human emotion and predisposition to benefit herself without any thought of what damage she is causing others. Every action of hers seems so calculating (similar to Ted Buddy from what I have read). I hope she gets a very long prison sentence.

YeBanKo 5y ago
No, all the enablers are danger to society.
- throwawaysea 5y ago
  Who are the enablers in your view? I know there were many noteworthy investors and names attached to Theranos as a strategy to give it credibility and momentum. But in the end wasn’t it enabled by just us, the everyday people? Everyone ate up the Fortune cover story and every outlet from news media to Facebook to LinkedIn leveraged Elizabeth Holmes as a beacon for Diversity, Inclusion, and Equity. The author of that cover story also may have been a victim, or so he claimed in a follow up article (https://fortune.com/2015/12/17/how-theranos-misled-me-elizabeth-holmes/ https://fortune.com/2015/12/17/how-theranos-misled-me-elizab...). I see Holmes and other key associates as those primarily at fault in this saga, but hold the public secondarily responsible for eating it all up so uncritically.

robinsoh 5y ago

My guess is that it is because Theranos came out of Stanford, was a Silicon Valley darling for a bit. I know that PG had said "people like Elizabeth Holmes are actually rarer there than in the rest of the business world, or in politics." which I would agree with but SV does give such people a leverage factor that they can't get in the rest of world. I'm fairly certain Elizabeth Holmes couldn't have achieved the level of bizarre impact she had anywhere else but Palo Alto. I also have a genuine fear that her Svengali defense is going to succeed and that will harm all women entrepreneurs in a deep and consequential way.

CyrusL 5y ago
Theranos was not a Silicon Valley darling. I don't think there were any big SV venture funds involved. It was people like Ruport Murdoch, Henry Kissinger, George Shultz, and James Mattis investing and sitting on the board.
- austinhutch 5y ago
  Tim Draper is a major SV personality and an early investor in Theranos lending it legitimacy.
  - wp381640 5y ago
    He cut her a personal check for $100k when she was 19 and didn't have much of a company because he liked her. Not following up on that investment is a pretty strong signal
- robinsoh 5y ago
  > Theranos was not a Silicon Valley darling Please allow to present some exhibits. https://www.businessinsider.com/the-history-of-silicon-valley-unicorn-theranos-and-ceo-elizabeth-holmes-2018-5 https://www.businessinsider.com/the-history-of-silicon-valle... "Theranos, the blood-testing startup that went from Silicon Valley darling to facing fraud charges" https://www.cnbctv18.com/business/from-silicon-valley-darling-to-fraud-accused-the-rise-and-fall-of-theranos-founder-elizabeth-holmes-10659411.htm https://www.cnbctv18.com/business/from-silicon-valley-darlin... "From Silicon Valley darling to fraud accused" https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2021/aug/28/elizabeth-holmes-theranos-trial-john-carreyrou https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2021/aug/28/elizabeth... " the Silicon Valley darling said could perform a variety of medical tests with just a drop of blood" Don Lucas. Larry Ellison. Oracle. As I said, Elizabeth Holmes being pretty much from Silicon Valley royalty was key to the leverage she managed to achieve. I'll be surprised if she's found guilty.

themodelplumber 5y ago

Looking past the eccentricities, he's clearly a nuanced thinker with regard to humanity and human values. This is easy to tell by examining both his viewpoint that the media is being shallow, and that one can't really know this person (Holmes). Protecting those he's closest to, as well. Watch this guy, he will bare his teeth more often after this event of exposure. He is going to protect her blindspot (frankly: morality in general) with his deepening-fractal viewpoint on right and wrong.

swang 5y ago

You just have to kind of laugh at this.. people willing to be this sociopathic for possible minimal gain. Like their risk/reward is completely off-balance because the risk can always be mitigated by having a lot of money. Reward: some reporters fall for your everyman spiel and manner and write a nicer article about Holmes Risk: you're found out and... nothing. nothing happens to you because you're rich and its not like your career is in jeopardy. I guess when you're super rich you never have any consequences to doing stuff like this so why not try it? Worse that can happen is you get an article written about you.

hollerith 5y ago
>nothing happens to you because you're rich What do you believe happens to non-rich people who lie to reporters when accosted by reporters in public?

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

allears 5y ago

Lends credence to the idea that Holmes and everybody she associates with have a very casual association with the truth. This guy may not be directly involved with the trial, but he certainly isn't helping her case any.

throwaway81523 5y ago
Makes me think of a quote from the Berezovsky trial a while back: The judge concurred, concluding, “I found Mr Berezovsky an unimpressive, and inherently unreliable, witness, who regarded truth as a transitory, flexible concept, which could be moulded to suit his current purposes.” Berezovsky lost. (From Guardian profile of Jonathan Sumption, https://www.theguardian.com/law/2015/aug/06/jonathan-sumption-brain-of-britain https://www.theguardian.com/law/2015/aug/06/jonathan-sumptio... . That quote has always stuck with me since it describes so many of the different dweebs who we all run into).
quantified 5y ago
Baby granddaddy has an interest in the outcome.

antattack 5y ago

This man is obviously Holmes' admirer. He likely sees nothing wrong with telling people half-truths.

quantified 5y ago
He’s family. But maybe he’s playing a deeper con that the media fell for. We’ll see.

mdoms 5y ago

This doesn't really seem like an interesting story to me. It has no bearing on the case or the outcome or anything else really. Just some weird tangentially-related guy lied about who he is.

randycupertino 5y ago
He's her father-in-law, not exactly tangential relations.

ryanisnan 5y ago

Ok, HackerNews has either a serious algorithm ranking issue, or there is something super sketchy going on. *Edit: I should say I have no reason to distrust HN admins, merely stating the two possibilities. This post is more recent, has more points, and more activity, yet is considerably below older posts with less engagement. I expect pg or dang to chime in here. https://i.imgur.com/4ExBw4L.png https://i.imgur.com/4ExBw4L.png

randycupertino 5y ago
I think (but correct me if I'm wrong) that sometimes HN puts "controversial" articles - like, I'm guessing this one could be construed as?- on the second page automatically? Not entirely sure why but I think I remember dang mentioning that one time.
- ryanisnan 5y ago
  I think you might be right, but on the topic - two things: to those who would downvote me when this is unexplained - your behaviour is silly. If I am wrong, please explain. Second, to have opaque ajudication on things is not in the best interest of this community. Posts that are penalized in this manner should have a post indicating as such.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

hiyer 5y ago

I'm no fan of Holmes or Theranos, but I have to say it would be weird if Holmes goes to jail when the Sacklers not only stayed out but got to keep their billions too. The law works in mysterious ways.

whymauri 5y ago
Not weird, simply a correction of errors.