My guess about the discrepancy is that the lies she told investors were more brazen and came directly from her own mouth. She told investors and journalists tha

My guess about the discrepancy is that the lies she told investors were more brazen and came directly from her own mouth. She told investors and journalists that Theranos was working on military contracts (no such contracts ever existed), and she straight up told investors that no third party testing was involved in Theranos test results (a lie). She directly ordered employees to omit positive test results from investors' blood tests because she didn't have confidence in the results. This is all documented and she has admitted to much of it. The lies told to patients and fraudulent test results could be (and were) denied by saying she wasn't aware of what was happening in the labs. It's not that investors are more important in the eyes of the law or that patients weren't lied to, it's about the quality of the evidence available. Her not guilty verdicts do not mean she's innocent, simply that there wasn't enough evidence available to convince a jury.