7 ms·

I 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 bee

I 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 ago
    I 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 ago
      I 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 ago
    She’s a creepy sociopath who will inevitably be photogenic and charismatic to the kinds of people who need protection from her.
  - bitwize 4y ago
    She 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 ago
      The 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 ago
Now do Martha Stewart.
- pseudolus 4y ago
  The 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 ago
    You'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 ago
  Snoop Dog loves her - she did her time and did not snitch :).
- Overtonwindow 4y ago
  Five 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 ago
    From what I remember Martha was only convicted of lying to prosecutors
ch4s3 4y ago
Almost 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 ago
  I'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 ago
    https://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 ago
    As 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 ago
    Suspects 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 ago
  Tim 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 ago
    How he's not been taken legally out of circulation for his involvement is amazing.
  - projektfu 4y ago
    A 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 ago
    Even 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 ago
For someone who defrauded Henry Kissinger, she's lucky her family wasn't suicided.

I 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 ago
  I 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 ago
    I 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 ago
  She’s a creepy sociopath who will inevitably be photogenic and charismatic to the kinds of people who need protection from her.
- bitwize 4y ago
  She 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 ago
    The 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 ago

Now do Martha Stewart.

pseudolus 4y ago
The 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 ago
  You'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 ago
Snoop Dog loves her - she did her time and did not snitch :).
Overtonwindow 4y ago
Five 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 ago
  From what I remember Martha was only convicted of lying to prosecutors

ch4s3 4y ago

Almost 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 ago
I'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 ago
  https://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 ago
  As 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 ago
  Suspects 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 ago
Tim 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 ago
  How he's not been taken legally out of circulation for his involvement is amazing.
- projektfu 4y ago
  A 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 ago
  Even 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 ago

For someone who defrauded Henry Kissinger, she's lucky her family wasn't suicided.