Theranos' Elizabeth Holmes guilty - Printable Version
+- The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board)
+-- Forum: C-House! (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-4.html)
+--- Forum: The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-5.html)
+--- Thread: Theranos' Elizabeth Holmes guilty (/thread-16121.html)
+- The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board)
+-- Forum: C-House! (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-4.html)
+--- Forum: The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-5.html)
+--- Thread: Theranos' Elizabeth Holmes guilty (/thread-16121.html)
RE: Theranos' Elizabeth Holmes indicted - GoodGrief - 08-31-2021
(08-31-2021, 06:54 PM)JustAnotherFan Wrote:
(08-31-2021, 11:34 AM)CompSci87 Wrote:
(08-31-2021, 11:28 AM)JustAnotherFan Wrote:
This is going to be a train wreck. Representing oneself is foolish even for a misdemeanor traffic offense.
I don't think that's what the "defend herself..." quote above means. She won't be acting as her own attorney. The quote is just describing her defense strategy.
Got it. I read it too quickly. Although, it is possible she believes she is always the smartest in the room.
Of course, if there is any truth to her defense that would be tragic.
I don’t know—the NPR article sure makes it sound like she will be representing herself.
Typically, news articles about courtroom strategy say something like “X’s lawyers plan to argue that…“ Whereas the NPR article says repeatedly something like, “Holmes will argue…” And certainly representing herself would not be out of character for Holmes (and apparently she did that in a case filed in Arizona when her lawyers quit due to lack of payment). It sounds like she has a team of lawyers but may defend herself. I myself am exceedingly curious to watch all this unfold (cue Thriller Michael Jackson gleefully eating popcorn gif)
RE: Theranos' Elizabeth Holmes indicted - oldalum - 09-01-2021
(08-31-2021, 11:06 PM)GoodGrief Wrote: Whereas the NPR article says repeatedly something like, “Holmes will argue…” It sounds like she has a team of lawyers but may defend herself.I think that's a common shorthand instead of saying "the defense lawyers" or "Holmes' lawyers." FWIW, I use it myself in my writing. It is truly the defendant's defense: if it is unsuccessful, it's not the lawyers who go to jail. However, I think Holmes will testify and her fate will depend on that testimony. That will be riveting if it is video'd. Will she use the low voice or the real voice??
from a CNN story: "Over the course of the day, Holmes' attorneys, federal prosecutors and Judge Edward Davila questioned potential jurors."
CNN story
RE: Theranos' Elizabeth Holmes indicted - Mick - 09-01-2021
voir dire began yesterday in San Jose. Holmes is not representing herself, she has a Dream Team-level white collar defense team from Williams & Connolly, including Amy Saharia (licensed before USSC, clerked for Sotomayor), Kevin Downy (Chambers white collar band 2 -- heaviest of heavy hitters) and Lance Wade, also Chambers rated.
RE: Theranos' Elizabeth Holmes indicted - oldalum - 09-01-2021
(09-01-2021, 09:28 AM)Mick Wrote: she has a Dream Team-level white collar defense teamWhite collar criminal defense lawyers tend to be the best that money can buy. And Holmes' husband has billions (literally).
RE: Theranos' Elizabeth Holmes indicted - BostonCard - 09-01-2021
Someone is live-tweeting the jury selection:
[tweet]https://twitter.com/eringriffith/status/1433077200455024654?s=20[/tweet]
Not surprisingly, lots of jurors dismissed for one reason or another.
BC
RE: Theranos' Elizabeth Holmes indicted - 82lsju - 09-02-2021
Quote:
- A jury of seven men and five women has been chosen to determine the fate of Theranos founder Elizabeth Holmes.
- Opening statements for the case will begin on Wednesday.
https://www.cnbc.com/2021/09/02/theranos-founder-elizabeth-holmes-faces-jury-of-seven-men-five-women.html?utm_content=Main&utm_medium=Social&utm_source=Facebook&fbclid=IwAR0hvVl0hTZU8ZFg1xRxxuCrXvPbT4836SaCEqYvp7A4PsdQY1moAVAaJTo#Echobox=1630607882
RE: Theranos' Elizabeth Holmes indicted - oldalum - 09-02-2021
(09-02-2021, 12:00 PM)82lsju Wrote: [*]A jury of seven men and five women has been chosen to determine the fate of Theranos founder Elizabeth Holmes.and she only needs one of those men to fall under her spell . . . pretty good odds?!
RE: Theranos' Elizabeth Holmes indicted - Mick - 09-14-2021
Elizabeth Holmes' trial is hitting an interesting stage. Apparently they want to call numerous famous witnesses, including Henry Kissinger, General James Mattis, Rupert Murdoch, David Boies and 11 patients who claim they were impacted by Theranos' inaccurate test results as well as nine physicians whose patients received inaccurate tests.
Theranos Trial: Prosecution, Defense Both Use Ex-Financial Controller Testimony In Elizabeth Holmes Fraud Trial (msn.com)
RE: Theranos' Elizabeth Holmes indicted - BostonCard - 09-14-2021
I also read somewhere that her defense has deviated a bit from what had been outlined earlier, and that her lawyers are trying to highlight that she was a true believer who didn’t profit from the deception. They note she never sold her stock and that as a result she lost everything when it went bankrupt. Not sure if that will convince anyone but it might elicit some sympathy.
BC
RE: Theranos' Elizabeth Holmes indicted - Softball Fan - 09-15-2021
I didn't know she didn't sell any of her stock. That changes my perspective somewhat. If she knew this was a scam and was going to fall apart, it seems like she would have sold a substantial portion of her stock.
It doesn't change the fact test data was falsified and she was aware of it. There has to be consequences for her because people's lives were put at risk.
RE: Theranos' Elizabeth Holmes indicted - 82lsju - 09-15-2021
(09-02-2021, 02:20 PM)oldalum Wrote:(09-02-2021, 12:00 PM)82lsju Wrote: [*]A jury of seven men and five women has been chosen to determine the fate of Theranos founder Elizabeth Holmes.and she only needs one of those men to fall under her spell . . . pretty good odds?!
now eight men and four women
(09-14-2021, 10:39 PM)BostonCard Wrote: I also read somewhere that her defense has deviated a bit from what had been outlined earlier, and that her lawyers are trying to highlight that she was a true believer who didn’t profit from the deception. They note she never sold her stock and that as a result she lost everything when it went bankrupt. Not sure if that will convince anyone but it might elicit some sympathy.
BC
of course with Theranos being private her ability to sell stock is limited and the negative PR spin of the CEO selling stock is not good
RE: Theranos' Elizabeth Holmes indicted - Mick - 09-20-2021
Some unconventional comments on the trial:
1) Ramesh "Sunny" Balwani was denied a request for saved seats at Holmes' trial by Judge Edward Davila. Balwani can still attend the trial, but has to wait in the first-come, first-served line like everyone.
2) Juror was excused for financial hardship. She had previously said she needed to support her mother, but her employer won't pay her for jury duty.
3) Controller says they were spending $2 mms. per week by 2015. Revenue had been projected at $140 mms. in 2014, and $990 mms. in 2015. Controller says she wasn't involved in prepping that document.
4) ERika Cheung testified that the Edison machines failed quality control, so they routinely cherry picked data so that they'd pass the tests. She brought it to Balwani and George Schultz. Cheung later quit and filed a complaint with Medicare and Medicaid, also spoke with the WSJ reporter who broke the scandal. Theranos threatened to sue her for sharing confidential information.
5) Holmes knew Theranos machines weren't ready for Walgreens, said Surekha Gangakhedkar, former senior scientist.
RE: Theranos' Elizabeth Holmes indicted - Mick - 10-07-2021
The former CEO of Safeway, Peter Burd, testified yesterday, stating that Theranos didn't deliver on a $55 million deal that was negotiated almost exclusively by Elizabeth Holmes.
He said he was impressed with her charisma and Theranos' technology, but two years after the negotiations, promises went unfulfilled.
"What was unusual about it was that we never saw an attorney. Elizabeth appeared to be negotiating completely on her own, probably talking to counsel online, but I had never seen that done."
Also...
"There are very few people that I have met in business that I would say are charismatic. She was clearly charismatic. She was clearly smart. "
Holmes promised 20-30 minute wait times, so shoppers could purchase more in Safeway while they waited for results. She also claimed that Theranos was "cash flow neutral."
He asked for financials, she sent him emails indicating $223 million in revenue against $167 million in expenses in 2011. Safeway agreed to invest $55 million in cash and they planned to spend $30 million to remodel stores.
Burd testified that throughout their meetings, Holmes appeared to be in charge, even when Balwani was in the room. "She never looked at Sunny to see what he might be thinking. She answered these questions herself."
RE: Theranos' Elizabeth Holmes indicted - BostonCard - 01-03-2022
Holmes was found guilty of four of the eleven counts.
https://www.nytimes.com/live/2022/01/03/technology/elizabeth-holmes-trial-verdict
BC
RE: Theranos' Elizabeth Holmes indicted - 82lsju - 01-03-2022
(01-03-2022, 05:47 PM)BostonCard Wrote: Holmes was found guilty of four of the eleven counts.
https://www.nytimes.com/live/2022/01/03/technology/elizabeth-holmes-trial-verdict
BC
similar info for those who cannot see the NYT
Quote:Elizabeth Holmes deliberately misled investors about the capabilities of the blood testing technology at Theranos and is guilty of three counts of wire fraud, a jury found today. She is also guilty of conspiracy to defraud investors with her co-defendant, Sunny Balwani.
...
The jury found her not guilty of two counts of defrauding patients and not guilty of conspiracy to defraud patients. The jury did not return a verdict on three more counts of defrauding investors.
https://www.theverge.com/2022/1/3/22865362/theranos-elizabeth-holmes-wire-fraud-verdict-guilty
RE: Theranos' Elizabeth Holmes indicted - 2006alum - 01-03-2022
(01-03-2022, 05:47 PM)BostonCard Wrote: Holmes was found guilty of four of the eleven counts.Nice use of the thread subject update function! For a split second, I was wondering if you had Kreskin's Krystal.
https://www.nytimes.com/live/2022/01/03/technology/elizabeth-holmes-trial-verdict
BC
Split verdict seems about right to me, having only vaguely followed the trial.
A proud member of the class of 2006, btw...
RE: Theranos' Elizabeth Holmes guilty - ca245 - 01-03-2022
Legally, I think the jury was right to convict her, but I have little sympathy for big investors like the DeVos family and Murdoch. They were sophisticated investors and the fact that people like Kissinger, Schultz, and Mattis were on the Board of Directors should have immediately raised a “duty of inquiry” flag: what do these people — especially Kissinger and Schultz at their ages — know about running a hi tech company or the technology?
Ironically, it is the patients -- the people whom the jury did not convict her of defrauding -- who might have been the most injured. What if you received an erroneous Theranos test result saying that you did -- or did not -- have a serious disease, causing you in the first instance, to panic and expend a lot of time and money on more tests and doctors before finding out the correct situation, or, in the second instance, not get treatment until the disease progressed?
RE: Theranos' Elizabeth Holmes guilty - DC 86 - 01-03-2022
(01-03-2022, 07:08 PM)ca245 Wrote: Ironically, it is the patients -- the people whom the jury did not convict her of defrauding -- who might have been the most injured. What if you received an erroneous Theranos test result saying that you did -- or did not -- have a serious disease, causing you in the first instance, to panic and expend a lot of time and money on more tests and doctors before finding out the correct situation, or, in the second instance, not get treatment until the disease progressed?
Theranos knew that its machines didn't work so they used Siemens products to do the tests. So patients at the Walgreens walk-in clinics were actually getting good results, because they weren't using Theranos technology. This is my understanding of why she wasn't convicted on the charges of fraud against patients.
RE: Theranos' Elizabeth Holmes guilty - 2006alum - 01-03-2022
(01-03-2022, 07:08 PM)ca245 Wrote: Ironically, it is the patients -- the people whom the jury did not convict her of defrauding -- who might have been the most injured. What if you received an erroneous Theranos test result saying that you did -- or did not -- have a serious disease, causing you in the first instance, to panic and expend a lot of time and money on more tests and doctors before finding out the correct situation, or, in the second instance, not get treatment until the disease progressed?
You're obviously right as a moral matter, but the problem is the federal charges related to the patients were all wire fraud charges. I'd imagine there are probably state contract or common law fraud charges the patients could bring as well as emotional distress charges, and probably state prosecutors could have considered state criminal charges related to her defrauding the patients. But I'm pretty confident if the best the feds could charge her with was wire fraud, there weren't any federal criminal charges that would have stuck.
RE: Theranos' Elizabeth Holmes guilty - ca245 - 01-03-2022
(01-03-2022, 07:38 PM)2006alum Wrote:Yes, the feds went through some contortions trying to nail her with a defrauding patient charge. The better legal claim might be a traditional defective product strict liability claim, but that would be a state civil (not criminal) action.(01-03-2022, 07:08 PM)ca245 Wrote: Ironically, it is the patients -- the people whom the jury did not convict her of defrauding -- who might have been the most injured. What if you received an erroneous Theranos test result saying that you did -- or did not -- have a serious disease, causing you in the first instance, to panic and expend a lot of time and money on more tests and doctors before finding out the correct situation, or, in the second instance, not get treatment until the disease progressed?
You're obviously right as a moral matter, but the problem is the federal charges related to the patients were all wire fraud charges. I'd imagine there are probably state contract or common law fraud charges the patients could bring as well as emotional distress charges, and probably state prosecutors could have considered state criminal charges related to her defrauding the patients. But I'm pretty confident if the best the feds could charge her with was wire fraud, there weren't any federal criminal charges that would have stuck.