[Softball Fan]

"Theranos founder Elizabeth Holmes, charged with a dozen felony fraud counts over her defunct Palo Alto blood-testing startup, plans to introduce evidence of a mental condition that affects the issue of guilt, a blockbuster judge’s order has revealed."

https://www.mercurynews.com/2020/09/11/t...-of-guilt/

This is getting ridiculous. I mean if she had debilitating mental illness, why didn't she try to seek help for it earlier?

On the surface it does sound like a far-fetched and long-shot defense. I doubt she truly believes she has a mental illness.  But she doesn't want to go jail and if her attorneys say this is her best avenue, then you can't blame her.  Blame the system possibly or blame the jury if she walks.

[Softball Fan]

"Theranos founder Elizabeth Holmes, charged with a dozen felony fraud counts over her defunct Palo Alto blood-testing startup, plans to introduce evidence of a mental condition that affects the issue of guilt, a blockbuster judge’s order has revealed."

https://www.mercurynews.com/2020/09/11/t...-of-guilt/

This is getting ridiculous. I mean if she had debilitating mental illness, why didn't she try to seek help for it earlier?

On the surface it does sound like a far-fetched and long-shot defense. I doubt she truly believes she has a mental illness.  But she doesn't want to go jail and if her attorneys say this is her best avenue, then you can't blame her.  Blame the system possibly or blame the jury if she walks.

[teejers1]

"Theranos founder Elizabeth Holmes, charged with a dozen felony fraud counts over her defunct Palo Alto blood-testing startup, plans to introduce evidence of a mental condition that affects the issue of guilt, a blockbuster judge’s order has revealed."

https://www.mercurynews.com/2020/09/11/t...-of-guilt/

This is getting ridiculous. I mean if she had debilitating mental illness, why didn't she try to seek help for it earlier?

On the surface it does sound like a far-fetched and long-shot defense.  I doubt she truly believes she has a mental illness.  But she doesn't want to go jail and if her attorneys say this is her best avenue, then you can't blame her.  Blame the system possibly or blame the jury if she walks.

Without knowing the first thing about medical diagnoses for mental health matters, I'm going to go out on a limb and say the government's experts are going to have a field day interviewing Holmes's expert (as the Court directed to occur).  We'll see . . .

[teejers1]

"Theranos founder Elizabeth Holmes, charged with a dozen felony fraud counts over her defunct Palo Alto blood-testing startup, plans to introduce evidence of a mental condition that affects the issue of guilt, a blockbuster judge’s order has revealed."

https://www.mercurynews.com/2020/09/11/t...-of-guilt/

This is getting ridiculous. I mean if she had debilitating mental illness, why didn't she try to seek help for it earlier?

On the surface it does sound like a far-fetched and long-shot defense.  I doubt she truly believes she has a mental illness.  But she doesn't want to go jail and if her attorneys say this is her best avenue, then you can't blame her.  Blame the system possibly or blame the jury if she walks.

Without knowing the first thing about medical diagnoses for mental health matters, I'm going to go out on a limb and say the government's experts are going to have a field day interviewing Holmes's expert (as the Court directed to occur).  We'll see . . .

[CompSci87]

This condition?

https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-cond...c-20353928

But using that as a defense to absolve oneself of legal guilt seems unlikely to fly.

[CompSci87]

This condition?

https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-cond...c-20353928

But using that as a defense to absolve oneself of legal guilt seems unlikely to fly.

[OutsiderFan]

She must have taken cues from Joe DeAngelo, the serial rapist and killer just put away for 1,000 years or whatever it was. Dude shows up in court in a wheelchair looking all frail and weak, but the prosecution has video of him in his jail cell doing jumping jacks and climbing on a table.

Theranos is no more sick now than she was when she defrauded people, and I don’t recall anyone calling her sick then, including herself. The same intent to deceive that drove the fraud is now driving the mental illness defense, an understanding that you can get ahead by lying to and fooling people.

[OutsiderFan]

She must have taken cues from Joe DeAngelo, the serial rapist and killer just put away for 1,000 years or whatever it was. Dude shows up in court in a wheelchair looking all frail and weak, but the prosecution has video of him in his jail cell doing jumping jacks and climbing on a table.

Theranos is no more sick now than she was when she defrauded people, and I don’t recall anyone calling her sick then, including herself. The same intent to deceive that drove the fraud is now driving the mental illness defense, an understanding that you can get ahead by lying to and fooling people.

[needle]

She must have taken cues from Joe DeAngelo, the serial rapist and killer just put away for 1,000 years or whatever it was. Dude shows up in court in a wheelchair looking all frail and weak, but the prosecution has video of him in his jail cell doing jumping jacks and climbing on a table.

Theranos is no more sick now than she was when she defrauded people, and I don’t recall anyone calling her sick then, including herself. The same intent to deceive that drove the fraud is now driving the mental illness defense, an understanding that you can get ahead by lying to and fooling people.

She's young, and the max penalties she faces probably mean she'll spend about a year in prison (just a guess) if convicted. 

Lots of life left, and I'm cynical enough to believe that the arguments being put forward in court are with an eye towards rehabilitating her image.

[needle]

She must have taken cues from Joe DeAngelo, the serial rapist and killer just put away for 1,000 years or whatever it was. Dude shows up in court in a wheelchair looking all frail and weak, but the prosecution has video of him in his jail cell doing jumping jacks and climbing on a table.

Theranos is no more sick now than she was when she defrauded people, and I don’t recall anyone calling her sick then, including herself. The same intent to deceive that drove the fraud is now driving the mental illness defense, an understanding that you can get ahead by lying to and fooling people.

She's young, and the max penalties she faces probably mean she'll spend about a year in prison (just a guess) if convicted. 

Lots of life left, and I'm cynical enough to believe that the arguments being put forward in court are with an eye towards rehabilitating her image.

[JohnR34231]

She must have taken cues from Joe DeAngelo, the serial rapist and killer just put away for 1,000 years or whatever it was. Dude shows up in court in a wheelchair looking all frail and weak, but the prosecution has video of him in his jail cell doing jumping jacks and climbing on a table.

Theranos is no more sick now than she was when she defrauded people, and I don’t recall anyone calling her sick then, including herself. The same intent to deceive that drove the fraud is now driving the mental illness defense, an understanding that you can get ahead by lying to and fooling people.

She's young, and the max penalties she faces probably mean she'll spend about a year in prison (just a guess) if convicted. 

Lots of life left, and I'm cynical enough to believe that the arguments being put forward in court are with an eye towards rehabilitating her image.

I think Elizabeth learned the Silicon Valley "fake it until you make it" lesson a little too well.
I, too, will be surprised if she spends much time behind bars.

[JohnR34231]

She must have taken cues from Joe DeAngelo, the serial rapist and killer just put away for 1,000 years or whatever it was. Dude shows up in court in a wheelchair looking all frail and weak, but the prosecution has video of him in his jail cell doing jumping jacks and climbing on a table.

Theranos is no more sick now than she was when she defrauded people, and I don’t recall anyone calling her sick then, including herself. The same intent to deceive that drove the fraud is now driving the mental illness defense, an understanding that you can get ahead by lying to and fooling people.

She's young, and the max penalties she faces probably mean she'll spend about a year in prison (just a guess) if convicted. 

Lots of life left, and I'm cynical enough to believe that the arguments being put forward in court are with an eye towards rehabilitating her image.

I think Elizabeth learned the Silicon Valley "fake it until you make it" lesson a little too well.
I, too, will be surprised if she spends much time behind bars.

[gailtate]

She must have taken cues from Joe DeAngelo, the serial rapist and killer just put away for 1,000 years or whatever it was. Dude shows up in court in a wheelchair looking all frail and weak, but the prosecution has video of him in his jail cell doing jumping jacks and climbing on a table.



Theranos is no more sick now than she was when she defrauded people, and I don’t recall anyone calling her sick then, including herself. The same intent to deceive that drove the fraud is now driving the mental illness defense, an understanding that you can get ahead by lying to and fooling people.

She's young, and the max penalties she faces probably mean she'll spend about a year in prison (just a guess) if convicted. 



Lots of life left, and I'm cynical enough to believe that the arguments being put forward in court are with an eye towards rehabilitating her image.

She'll be on "Oprah", write a book, make commencement speeches, and score a reality series, The Scarred Wives of Silicon Valley.  She'll be livin' the dream. Got it made. Oh, and teach a class at Stanford.

[gailtate]

She must have taken cues from Joe DeAngelo, the serial rapist and killer just put away for 1,000 years or whatever it was. Dude shows up in court in a wheelchair looking all frail and weak, but the prosecution has video of him in his jail cell doing jumping jacks and climbing on a table.



Theranos is no more sick now than she was when she defrauded people, and I don’t recall anyone calling her sick then, including herself. The same intent to deceive that drove the fraud is now driving the mental illness defense, an understanding that you can get ahead by lying to and fooling people.

She's young, and the max penalties she faces probably mean she'll spend about a year in prison (just a guess) if convicted. 



Lots of life left, and I'm cynical enough to believe that the arguments being put forward in court are with an eye towards rehabilitating her image.

She'll be on "Oprah", write a book, make commencement speeches, and score a reality series, The Scarred Wives of Silicon Valley.  She'll be livin' the dream. Got it made. Oh, and teach a class at Stanford.

[Goose]

I think Elizabeth learned the Silicon Valley "fake it until you make it" lesson a little too well.
I, too, will be surprised if she spends much time behind bars.

I think this defense could actually backfire. The judge (and the jury if they actually hear it presented) may see it as the heights of trying to game the system and add punishment/guilt based on clear lack of remorse. Once you try something like this, if it doesn't work it is impossible to walk it back.

[Goose]

I think Elizabeth learned the Silicon Valley "fake it until you make it" lesson a little too well.
I, too, will be surprised if she spends much time behind bars.

I think this defense could actually backfire. The judge (and the jury if they actually hear it presented) may see it as the heights of trying to game the system and add punishment/guilt based on clear lack of remorse. Once you try something like this, if it doesn't work it is impossible to walk it back.

[pefloresjr]

The defense is unlikely to claim she has anti-social personality disorder.  If anything, they will claim the opposite, a sort of hyper-social personality disorder.  The reason for this is that fraud is a specific intent crime.  That means the prosecution has to prove not only that she convinced people to invest in her company but that she convinced them to invest in the company knowing that it was all based on a lie.  Without documents, emails, texts, or recordings of her admitting that they were defrauding the investors, her specific intent to defraud will have to be proved based on the circumstantial evidence that the trials and development of her company were not showing the results she was touting to the investors.    

As a result, based on the specialty of her expert witnesses, I think we will hear that she was terribly abused/molested as a child and possibly as a young adult.  Because of this abuse, she developed PTSD with a devastated sense of self worth.  Because of that she had/has an urgent need to please and/or save others to gain their approval.  Sort of a Florence Nightingale need to try to help/save people.  From there, the defense attorneys will be able to describe her in a positive light as a person who was relentlessly pursuing an inexpensive way to bring healthcare testing to the masses.  Because of her dogged efforts to help others, she was unable to even imagine that those efforts could fail.  She saw the issues with the testing procedure as simply the normal bumps in the road faced by all companies seeking to achieve greatness.  She is bolstered in this belief by her experience in succeeding at the highest levels in academics.  Her need to succeed and be someone special was a way to gain approval and help others.  So, she never had any thing near the specific intent to defraud.  On the contrary she had the intent to bring people along in her efforts to save the world.  As George Costanza put it:  "It's not a lie if you believe it."   

Whether or not that will work remains to be seen.  It could very well back fire on her.  However, she is educated, white, wealthy, attractive, and doesn't meet many potential juror's image of what a thief should look like.  All the defense needs is for one juror to feel sorry for her and to believe that maybe she really did believe her new testing process was going to work.  That means no specific intent to defraud has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt and at least a hung jury.  If the defense raises enough of a doubt in the entire jury (even if most think she probably knew she was defrauding people) they could all vote not guilty because they are not convinced of her specific intent to defraud beyond a reasonable doubt.  

Cross-examining her experts would be fun because they will probably have been paid a great deal of money and often overstate their positions.  However, if they are really good, they won't overreach and it is tougher to get every juror to disregard their testimony.  

It is really interesting that, as a condition to introducing this expert witness testimony, the judge is making the defendant undergo pshychological testing by the prosecution.  Defendants have the right to not incriminate themselves but they don't have an unfettered right to introduce any evidence they want as part of their defense at trial.  I have serious doubts whether these exams will ever be completed because her attorneys are going to be objecting to 90% of that testing with the exception of some standard tests that were also performed by her experts.  

I don't know what will happen, but I expect there will be ongoing amazement and outrage from some observers regardless of the outcome.  

Cheers,
Pete F.

[pefloresjr]

The defense is unlikely to claim she has anti-social personality disorder.  If anything, they will claim the opposite, a sort of hyper-social personality disorder.  The reason for this is that fraud is a specific intent crime.  That means the prosecution has to prove not only that she convinced people to invest in her company but that she convinced them to invest in the company knowing that it was all based on a lie.  Without documents, emails, texts, or recordings of her admitting that they were defrauding the investors, her specific intent to defraud will have to be proved based on the circumstantial evidence that the trials and development of her company were not showing the results she was touting to the investors.    

As a result, based on the specialty of her expert witnesses, I think we will hear that she was terribly abused/molested as a child and possibly as a young adult.  Because of this abuse, she developed PTSD with a devastated sense of self worth.  Because of that she had/has an urgent need to please and/or save others to gain their approval.  Sort of a Florence Nightingale need to try to help/save people.  From there, the defense attorneys will be able to describe her in a positive light as a person who was relentlessly pursuing an inexpensive way to bring healthcare testing to the masses.  Because of her dogged efforts to help others, she was unable to even imagine that those efforts could fail.  She saw the issues with the testing procedure as simply the normal bumps in the road faced by all companies seeking to achieve greatness.  She is bolstered in this belief by her experience in succeeding at the highest levels in academics.  Her need to succeed and be someone special was a way to gain approval and help others.  So, she never had any thing near the specific intent to defraud.  On the contrary she had the intent to bring people along in her efforts to save the world.  As George Costanza put it:  "It's not a lie if you believe it."   

Whether or not that will work remains to be seen.  It could very well back fire on her.  However, she is educated, white, wealthy, attractive, and doesn't meet many potential juror's image of what a thief should look like.  All the defense needs is for one juror to feel sorry for her and to believe that maybe she really did believe her new testing process was going to work.  That means no specific intent to defraud has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt and at least a hung jury.  If the defense raises enough of a doubt in the entire jury (even if most think she probably knew she was defrauding people) they could all vote not guilty because they are not convinced of her specific intent to defraud beyond a reasonable doubt.  

Cross-examining her experts would be fun because they will probably have been paid a great deal of money and often overstate their positions.  However, if they are really good, they won't overreach and it is tougher to get every juror to disregard their testimony.  

It is really interesting that, as a condition to introducing this expert witness testimony, the judge is making the defendant undergo pshychological testing by the prosecution.  Defendants have the right to not incriminate themselves but they don't have an unfettered right to introduce any evidence they want as part of their defense at trial.  I have serious doubts whether these exams will ever be completed because her attorneys are going to be objecting to 90% of that testing with the exception of some standard tests that were also performed by her experts.  

I don't know what will happen, but I expect there will be ongoing amazement and outrage from some observers regardless of the outcome.  

Cheers,
Pete F.

[JohnR34231]

"Because of her dogged efforts to help others, she was unable to even imagine that those efforts could fail."

I would tend to substitute "to gain fame and fortune" for "to help others".

[JohnR34231]

"Because of her dogged efforts to help others, she was unable to even imagine that those efforts could fail."

I would tend to substitute "to gain fame and fortune" for "to help others".

[Goose]

Because of her dogged efforts to help others, she was unable to even imagine that those efforts could fail.  She saw the issues with the testing procedure as simply the normal bumps in the road faced by all companies seeking to achieve greatness

The policy of total secrecy in the development process belies the idea that she believed she couldn't fail and that the problems were "normal bumps". If you actually believe that, there is no reason to keep everything secret from even the employees who are attempting to deliver on the dream. The security obsession is a clear argument for intent to mislead and consciousness of guilt. Such lack of openness is inconsistent with altruistic aim. I don't see how the defense can sell the idea she didn't know she was defrauding people when she withheld bad results even from her own employees.

[Goose]

Because of her dogged efforts to help others, she was unable to even imagine that those efforts could fail.  She saw the issues with the testing procedure as simply the normal bumps in the road faced by all companies seeking to achieve greatness

The policy of total secrecy in the development process belies the idea that she believed she couldn't fail and that the problems were "normal bumps". If you actually believe that, there is no reason to keep everything secret from even the employees who are attempting to deliver on the dream. The security obsession is a clear argument for intent to mislead and consciousness of guilt. Such lack of openness is inconsistent with altruistic aim. I don't see how the defense can sell the idea she didn't know she was defrauding people when she withheld bad results even from her own employees.

[82lsju]

The policy of total secrecy in the development process belies the idea that she believed she couldn't fail and that the problems were "normal bumps". If you actually believe that, there is no reason to keep everything secret from even the employees who are attempting to deliver on the dream. The security obsession is a clear argument for intent to mislead and consciousness of guilt. Such lack of openness is inconsistent with altruistic aim. I don't see how the defense can sell the idea she didn't know she was defrauding people when she withheld bad results even from her own employees.

well except if she saw herself as Steve Jobs II then the secrecy and limited info to people in the company is not surprising.....

[82lsju]

The policy of total secrecy in the development process belies the idea that she believed she couldn't fail and that the problems were "normal bumps". If you actually believe that, there is no reason to keep everything secret from even the employees who are attempting to deliver on the dream. The security obsession is a clear argument for intent to mislead and consciousness of guilt. Such lack of openness is inconsistent with altruistic aim. I don't see how the defense can sell the idea she didn't know she was defrauding people when she withheld bad results even from her own employees.

well except if she saw herself as Steve Jobs II then the secrecy and limited info to people in the company is not surprising.....

[JohnR34231]

The policy of total secrecy in the development process belies the idea that she believed she couldn't fail and that the problems were "normal bumps". If you actually believe that, there is no reason to keep everything secret from even the employees who are attempting to deliver on the dream. The security obsession is a clear argument for intent to mislead and consciousness of guilt. Such lack of openness is inconsistent with altruistic aim. I don't see how the defense can sell the idea she didn't know she was defrauding people when she withheld bad results even from her own employees.

well except if she saw herself as Steve Jobs II then the secrecy and limited info to people in the company is not surprising.....

I don't think she started out trying to deceive anyone. However, when the system wouldn't work she refused to accept that and went ahead as though it did, perhaps believing they were only a few tweaks away from success.

[JohnR34231]

The policy of total secrecy in the development process belies the idea that she believed she couldn't fail and that the problems were "normal bumps". If you actually believe that, there is no reason to keep everything secret from even the employees who are attempting to deliver on the dream. The security obsession is a clear argument for intent to mislead and consciousness of guilt. Such lack of openness is inconsistent with altruistic aim. I don't see how the defense can sell the idea she didn't know she was defrauding people when she withheld bad results even from her own employees.

well except if she saw herself as Steve Jobs II then the secrecy and limited info to people in the company is not surprising.....

I don't think she started out trying to deceive anyone. However, when the system wouldn't work she refused to accept that and went ahead as though it did, perhaps believing they were only a few tweaks away from success.

[Goose]

I don't think she started out trying to deceive anyone. However, when the system wouldn't work she refused to accept that and went ahead as though it did, perhaps believing they were only a few tweaks away from success.

I guess that is plausible IF she never told anybody that it DID work. If she ever lied about that, she can't use the defense that they thought they would get there but has a few kinks to work out. I suspect the Feds have plenty of evidence she in fact did misrepresent their progress. An altruist doesn't do that. Secrecy can be defended as a means to protect technology only if you aren't misrepresenting that technology. If you are, that secrecy becomes evidence of guilt.

[Goose]

I don't think she started out trying to deceive anyone. However, when the system wouldn't work she refused to accept that and went ahead as though it did, perhaps believing they were only a few tweaks away from success.

I guess that is plausible IF she never told anybody that it DID work. If she ever lied about that, she can't use the defense that they thought they would get there but has a few kinks to work out. I suspect the Feds have plenty of evidence she in fact did misrepresent their progress. An altruist doesn't do that. Secrecy can be defended as a means to protect technology only if you aren't misrepresenting that technology. If you are, that secrecy becomes evidence of guilt.

[82lsju]

I don't think she started out trying to deceive anyone. However, when the system wouldn't work she refused to accept that and went ahead as though it did, perhaps believing they were only a few tweaks away from success.

I guess that is plausible IF she never told anybody that it DID work. If she ever lied about that, she can't use the defense that they thought they would get there but has a few kinks to work out. I suspect the Feds have plenty of evidence she in fact did misrepresent their progress. An altruist doesn't do that. Secrecy can be defended as a means to protect technology only if you aren't misrepresenting that technology. If you are, that secrecy becomes evidence of guilt.

I can already hear "I'm not technically sophisticated, I dropped out after two years of college so I was not qualified to be the expert on how well it worked......."

[82lsju]

I don't think she started out trying to deceive anyone. However, when the system wouldn't work she refused to accept that and went ahead as though it did, perhaps believing they were only a few tweaks away from success.

I guess that is plausible IF she never told anybody that it DID work. If she ever lied about that, she can't use the defense that they thought they would get there but has a few kinks to work out. I suspect the Feds have plenty of evidence she in fact did misrepresent their progress. An altruist doesn't do that. Secrecy can be defended as a means to protect technology only if you aren't misrepresenting that technology. If you are, that secrecy becomes evidence of guilt.

I can already hear "I'm not technically sophisticated, I dropped out after two years of college so I was not qualified to be the expert on how well it worked......."

[fullmetal]

With a dad who was VP at Enron, who would have thought the apple could have fallen so close to the tree?  Maybe she'll try the affluenza defense as well.

[fullmetal]

With a dad who was VP at Enron, who would have thought the apple could have fallen so close to the tree?  Maybe she'll try the affluenza defense as well.

[Mick]

With a dad who was VP at Enron, who would have thought the apple could have fallen so close to the tree?  Maybe she'll try the affluenza defense as well.

If that doesn't work, the Twinkie defense.  Adverse reaction to vaccines.  El Nino.  Forest Fires.  Defamation.  Too many Republicans in her neighborhood.  She has choices...

[Mick]

With a dad who was VP at Enron, who would have thought the apple could have fallen so close to the tree?  Maybe she'll try the affluenza defense as well.

If that doesn't work, the Twinkie defense.  Adverse reaction to vaccines.  El Nino.  Forest Fires.  Defamation.  Too many Republicans in her neighborhood.  She has choices...

[gailtate]

She got support from Stanford stalwarts George Schultz and Channing Robertson.

George Schultz, for all his street smarts, business eminence and personal distinction, revealed stunningly poor judgement here. You can't make this up. Not only taking the Theranos bait hook, line, and sinker, but doubling down on his bets with a public legal feud with his son who was desperately trying to extricate the old man from this cluster.

[gailtate]

She got support from Stanford stalwarts George Schultz and Channing Robertson.

George Schultz, for all his street smarts, business eminence and personal distinction, revealed stunningly poor judgement here. You can't make this up. Not only taking the Theranos bait hook, line, and sinker, but doubling down on his bets with a public legal feud with his son who was desperately trying to extricate the old man from this cluster.

[teejers1]

She got support from Stanford stalwarts George Schultz and Channing Robertson.

George Schultz, for all his street smarts, business eminence and personal distinction, revealed stunningly poor judgement here. You can't make this up. Not only taking the Theranos bait hook, line, and sinker, but doubling down on his bets with a public legal feud with his son who was desperately trying to extricate the old man from this cluster.

grandson, wasn't it?

[teejers1]

She got support from Stanford stalwarts George Schultz and Channing Robertson.

George Schultz, for all his street smarts, business eminence and personal distinction, revealed stunningly poor judgement here. You can't make this up. Not only taking the Theranos bait hook, line, and sinker, but doubling down on his bets with a public legal feud with his son who was desperately trying to extricate the old man from this cluster.

grandson, wasn't it?

[Softball Fan]

If it's decided she is only guilty of a financial crime I don't see that much jail time.  If it's decided she intentionally put people's health and possibly their lives at stake, then a longer sentence seems more appropriate.

[Softball Fan]

If it's decided she is only guilty of a financial crime I don't see that much jail time.  If it's decided she intentionally put people's health and possibly their lives at stake, then a longer sentence seems more appropriate.