13 ms·
Theranos founder Elizabeth Holmes is denied a bid for new trial
- Overtonwindow 4y agoI am still very suspicious that she will not go to prison. I was frankly shocked that the jury found her guilty. She has a lot of privilege, and Justice has been shown to very kind to such people.
- dartdartdart 4y ago
- filoleg 4y ago> photogenic Maybe I am taking crazy pills, but even Unabomber at his unshaven peak (far from what most people would consider photogenic) was appearing more sane and photogenic than Holmes in her own promo photoshoots. Agreed with your ultimate conclusion though. No matter how you stack the cards here, I had a gut feeling that she would make it out just fine, with Sunny being scapegoated as the "manipulator". Don't get me wrong, I believe he deserves at least just as much blame as Holmes. But he stood no chance.
- Cupertino95014 4y agoI didn't go to Sunny's trial, but it didn't seem to generate much drama. The idea that he was the manipulator is a "finding of fact" in legal parlance. She can't raise that on appeal. Maybe if the defense tried and the judge refused to allow it, that could be appealed as an "error" and thus appealed. Offhand I don't think that happened in her trial, but I could be wrong (?) Only a new trial could bring that up. An appellate court could order a new trial; that happens sometimes. And, of course, in the sentencing hearing, they can try to blame Sunny. I don't think that reduces her sentence to zero, if it works at all. IANAL, so someone who is: feel free to correct me.
- nradov 4y agoI haven't read the trial transcripts but "manipulator" isn't really a formal term in criminal law. Even if the jury found that Ramesh “Sunny” Balwani encouraged Elizabeth Holmes to commit her crimes, that wouldn't be considered grounds for an acquittal, new trial, or lighter sentence. Adult, mentally competent defendants are legally considered to be responsible for their own actions (except for rare circumstances of coercion or threats which are obviously not a factor here).
- Waterluvian 4y agoShe’s a creepy sociopath who will inevitably be photogenic and charismatic to the kinds of people who need protection from her.
- bitwize 4y agoShe was hot. That's what it boils down to. When you consider her (mostly old male) investors, especially that pervert Bill Clinton, they weren't charmed by her stilted personality or her bizarre sanpaku eyes. They were thinking with the little head.
- SgtBastard 4y agoThe Clinton's didn't invest in Theranos. Bill appeared on a discussion panel with her once and Hillary's 2016 Presidential Campaign cancelled hosting an event at Theranos HQ after the leaks on Theranos (lack of) progress became public. Please don't bring partisan misandry to HN, we're better than this.
- Cupertino95014 4y agoNow do Martha Stewart.
- pseudolus 4y agoThe conviction of Martha Stewart didn't relate to any of the principal claims made against her but rather fell under the catchall "obstruction" and "lying to investigators". That she, rather than many of her much more connected and culpable contemporaries, went to prison is something of a travesty.
- Cupertino95014 4y agoYou're right, and she should have obeyed what 18 million viewers of this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-7o9xYp7eE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-7o9xYp7eE know: don't talk to police, period. Anyhow, it belies the notion that privileged white people don't go to prison. I actually know someone who did, and it wasn't for some catchall gotcha charge. I'm willing to put money on the line right now saying that Lizzie will go to prison.
- tibbydudeza 4y agoSnoop Dog loves her - she did her time and did not snitch :).
- Overtonwindow 4y agoFive months at the most comfortable female prison camp and five months on her horse farm? That's not exactly doing hard time. Also, Martha's crimes compared to Holmes were a lot less severe. I contend that you or I would have faced a much harsher sentence.
- sidewndr46 4y agoFrom what I remember Martha was only convicted of lying to prosecutors
- ch4s3 4y agoAlmost no one beats federal charges, because if the they're coming after you they'll have an airtight case before you ever go to trial. They'll put the screws to everyone you know, your bank, your dog, your coffee shop to get the evidence they need. If they think there's even a chance you'll beat the charge, they just don't bring the case. [EDIT] If you disagree, I'd suggest you read a bit that Ken White has written about federal prosecutions. Basically if they really want you, they'll trip you up in interviews and charge you with lying to the FBI.
- Mechanical9 4y agoI'm curious what these trip-ups look like, if anyone has the relevant info to share here. It seems easy to make the argument that the FBI is just tricking people, but I suspect that the lies people are caught in are much more sinister.
- xsmasher 4y agohttps://www.newsweek.com/michael-flynn-martha-stewart-charged-lying-fbi-728874 https://www.newsweek.com/michael-flynn-martha-stewart-charge... Related, from another article: > a federal jury found Stewart, who maintained her innocence, guilty of conspiracy, obstruction and two counts of lying to federal investigators (a securities fraud charge was dismissed) The original charge didn't stick, but they convicted on statements made to the FBI during the investigation.
- ch4s3 4y agoAs the other comment pointed out, they have a set of very particular facts and will press you with questions about dates, times, amounts, who, what, where, and when. If you say a not true statement about one of those things they charge you with lying. The relevant law is 18 U.S. CODE § 1001. It's 3 pronged and the 2nd says "makes any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or representation; or". I don't believe there is a requirement in this law for criminal intent, caveat IANAL.
- nradov 4y agoSuspects often trip themselves up lying to federal law enforcement officers about stuff that's not even really sinister or criminal. They tell small lies to avoid embarrassment or make themselves look better. People tell little white lies all the time in regular conversations and find it hard to break the habit when being interrogated by the FBI. Then when they get caught in a minor discrepancy they double down with bigger lies and dig themselves into an even deeper hole.
- pyuser583 4y ago
- __derek__ 4y agoTim Draper has continued to defend her and maintain that Theranos was legitimate, and some big-name VCs appear to have gotten more comfortable cutting big checks to possible frauds. I suspect she'll have an opportunity to commit a similar crime if she's so inclined.
- jjtheblunt 4y agoHow he's not been taken legally out of circulation for his involvement is amazing.
- projektfu 4y agoA lot of other frauds seem to be more about creating an aura of wonder and a cult of personality that people invest in, and they are smart enough not to make specific claims. For example, "you'll be in on the ground floor of this rocket" is entirely metaphorical if there is no floor and no rocket. "The Army is using this machine on the battlefield with Med-Evac teams" is a potentially fraudulent statement without a lot of nuance, and you can't walk it back by saying what you mean is that someone you were talking to in the DOD mentioned the finished product could be useful for them.
- sidewndr46 4y ago> She’s suffered huge and profound consequences for her actions. Like what? Life seems to have gone on as normal for her, other than having to make a bunch of court appearances.
- lotsofpulp 4y agoEven found herself a spouse to have 2 kids with while on her journey through the criminal court system. Actually kind of impressive.
- tgv 4y ago
- rib3ye 4y agoFor someone who defrauded Henry Kissinger, she's lucky her family wasn't suicided.
- brohee 4y agoAnother article, unpaywalled: https://www.mercurynews.com/2022/10/12/elizabeth-holmes-sentencing-set-for-next-month-as-prosecution-witness-fires-back/ https://www.mercurynews.com/2022/10/12/elizabeth-holmes-sent...
- atopia 4y agomy hero!
- bklaasen 4y agohttps://archive.ph/nyxGS https://archive.ph/nyxGS
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- Cupertino95014 4y agoI went to a day of her trial (there were no high-profile witnesses that day, so it was easy to get in). It was excruciatingly boring, like most trials and unlike trials on TV. Her chair was noticeably higher than everyone else's at her table, although she's not especially tall (5'7"). Prediction: 18 months. On hold until all the appeals are exhausted.
- newaccount2021 4y ago
- Overtonwindow 4y agoWhy on hold? That's another example of rich privilege. Why should she have her sentence delayed until all appeals are exhausted? Non-rich people are not typically afforded such luxury, it's off to jail immediately.
- jimt1234 4y agohttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HeOVbeh2yr0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HeOVbeh2yr0
- vkou 4y ago> Why should she have her sentence delayed until all appeals are exhausted? Because the legal system would grind to a halt if everyone got their day in court, but chugs along just fine if only a small privileged group is given full protection under the law. It's the same reason why Snowden is hiding in Russia, while another prominent individual who stole classified documents hasn't even been arrested.
- everybodyknows 4y ago> another prominent individual who stole classified documents hasn't even been ... Close watchers of the case assume timing of an indictment to be predicated on minimizing risk of civil disorder. Therefore after mid-term elections, and as early as practical before 2024 campaigning ramps up: https://www.emptywheel.net/2022/11/08/head-of-republican-party-attempts-to-stave-off-multiple-indictments-by-announcing-early/ https://www.emptywheel.net/2022/11/08/head-of-republican-par...
- s_dev 4y agoI'll always be shocked that she was guilty of deceiving investors and not patients. Investors made a large financial bet while patients engaged in a routine medical procedure. To me it's obvious which group needs protection and which had a right to certain expectations.
- jnk345u8dfg9hjk 4y agoInvestors are louder than patients
- haliskerbas 4y agoWhere volume is proportional to net worth, as per usual.
- birdyrooster 4y agoFree $peech
- gjsman-1000 4y agoSee also vaccine manufacturers for an example about how it isn't about the patients. They are legally immune from prosecution under the PREP Act for anything that unintentionally goes wrong. You also can't sue the FDA for approving any drug under Emergency Use Authorization. As for the vaccine court created to handle payouts from harm, it has only paid out 29 times in the last decade. I might believe the vaccines are safe - but 29 payouts (<6% of all filed claims) in a decade seems way too low by any statistic. The proof of harm seems insurmountable. https://www.cnbc.com/2020/12/16/covid-vaccine-side-effects-compensation-lawsuit.html https://www.cnbc.com/2020/12/16/covid-vaccine-side-effects-c...
- thelopa 4y agoThat statistic could equally be cited as evidence that vaccines are overwhelmingly safe but are plagued by widespread, unfounded belief that they cause harm. It certainly isn’t insurmountable proof that they cause harm. If you want to prove that vaccines cause harm you will need different data.
- ourmandave 4y agoShe should just follow the Pharma Bro's formula. 1. Do a couple years in white collar prison. 2. Upon release immediately pivot to crypto / web3. 3. Profit!
- ram4jesus 4y agoLock her up and throw away the key. What she did was incredibly perverse, disgusting, and immoral. She proved to millions of women that they too can get ahead, for a little while, by cheating, cajoling, and scamming their way to the top. For women needing role models, she set them back greatly.
- jmcgough 4y ago
- ram4jesus 4y agoThat’s an excellent point a lot of people probably doing worse harm than her, got away and are getting away with it. It’s a shame.
- nirav72 4y agoShe first and foremost defrauded rich and powerful people. That's usually the difference between one group getting away with it and others not. Bernie Madoff is another example.
- andirk 4y agoDid the company actually believe that the breakthrough could be made? That is a huge distinction between a scam and a scientific experiment that did not yield positive results. It did become an outright scam after a while, though. Moral of the story: don't mess with extremely rich people's money unless you yourself are also extremely rich.
- origin_path 4y agoWho are the male CEOs who did what she did, exactly, and how do you know they're guilty?
- P5fRxh5kUvp2th 4y agoThat's my question as well.
- 4y ago
- dwheeler 4y agoUnsurprising. It's difficult to get a new trial, you have to have a strong justification for it.
- bpodgursky 4y agoI'll just be honest. I'm fully aware of all the fraud Holmes committed, I've read the book, etc. She deserves prison. But as a juror I'd have a very hard time sending a mother of two very young children to prison for the rest of her life, for a crime that did not (albeit by luck) result in any physical harm. It no longer just impacts only her. I'm not trying to justify this position in in any legal sense. It is what it is.
- zippergz 4y agoCynically I almost wonder if one of her reasons for having kids was to play into exactly this line of thinking. She knew prison time was a possibility, and she made her choice.
- wellthisisgreat 4y agoCan there be any doubt that it was that?
- apetresc 4y agoYes, there can be lots of doubt. Women have been known, in the past, to have children even without the threat of a prison sentence.
- bpodgursky 4y agoIt might. But she's 38, and she may have decided that even an 8-10 year sentence would make it impossible for her to have children later, so did it now while she's free.
- tsol 4y ago>But she's 38, and she may have decided that even an 8-10 year sentence would make it impossible for her to have children later, so did it now while she's free. That's her decision to make, no one can stop her or anything, though that also means only very rarely seeing your child for the first 8-10 years of their life.
- andirk 4y agoHere's where Techcrunch cancelled themselves because Erlich Bachman's garbage standup said "bitch", but not because they crowned Theranos as the next big thing [0]. [0] https://youtu.be/I6jsjTVeJYk?t=6556 https://youtu.be/I6jsjTVeJYk?t=6556
- breck 4y agoContrarian opinion: the real villains in this story are the morons who advised a twenty something college genius to go after patents and pursue a strategy of developing in secret. #buildInPublic kids