Still should have charges related to attempted murder (knowingly incorrect testing for conditions that can easily lead to death), and some kind of charge through threats that lead to at least one person dying.
We also need to stop focusing just on her and also Ramesh Balwani who was just as complicit.
A jury trial could potentially go in her favor. Think bright young women who got in over her head, no fraudulent intent, having to explain the technology and the science to the jury etc... The only thing is that it will be quite difficult to find expert witnesses for the defense. July 2020 is close to November 2020 so it will happen at a time of maximal distraction.
It's possible she could win a jury trial, but if she does it'll be because there isn't enough evidence to meet the burden of proof. Finding experts is never a problem. There are always people willing to say whatever you need them to say for the right price. Also, the science being over the jurors' heads isn't really a big issue in federal court in San Francisco because the jury pool is well educated and quite scientifically literate. It's not quite as good as, say, San Jose, but it's far and away better than most parts of the country.
Source: Myself. I'm a jury consultant in SF and have picked juries in Davila's court.
She met Sunny Balwani her senior year in high school in 2002. She was 18. He was 37 and married.
I think they moved in together in 2005. She publicly claimed to be celibate and single-mindedly devoted to her company. He worked for Theranos for some years. Even her board had no idea they were romantically involved.
I wonder how much of a role their relationship played in this becoming a debacle and how reasonable it would be for her to claim she was taken advantage of by him.
I wish I had different questions about it. I'm a little disappointed to hear about their relationship. I almost liked it better when I was wondering if she was secretly sleeping with multiple board members or something and playing them all for a fool. Women being nothing but the playthings of men is such a tired trope.
"Another theory circulating amongst ex-Theranos employees, he says, is that 'Holmes is gong to get pregnant before she gets on the stand because she will look very sympathetic as a pregnant woman on the stand.'"
She was a media darling in part because she was a female founder. I wonder how much damage she's done to the ability of women to get taken seriously. I don't ever really see that angle talked about.
I think it's not talked about because it's not really relevant (I know that's circular, but so is the question). I don't believe anyone gave her a pass because she was a woman (typically, sadly, the opposite is the case anyway). I think she did get a pass because she was young and well spoken, but again, that's common with young well-spoken men as well.
I think what is not adequately discussed is the "affinity fraud" aspect of Theranos: she got her initial funding from a parent of her childhood friends, whose house she was often over as a child. And because he is well known, the company was more easily able to recruit other investors and board members, which had the typical snowball effect.
I've suggested before that her gender helped it balloon up to $10B before it fell apart. I think there are various mechanisms involved. Among other things, men don't engage women the same way they do other men.
But people act like I'm crazy for suggesting it and like I don't have valid reasons for trying to parse how this got so crazy and what her gender might have to do with how nutty this became. Trying to sort my life? -- not pertinent, clearly. A woman looking at stories about other women couldn't be trying to find an actual viable path forward for herself, no.
Or perhaps shouldn't be looking. "Status quo is god."
I basically posit that the question of sex that hangs in the air is a huge stumbling block for women. Most men know that if they are being friendly and establishing trust, this is a platonic relationship. When men and women try to be friendly and establish trust, it is easily confused for romantic behavior.
And it complicates the hell out of things. Men are very reticent to give women meaty constructive feedback. When they do, women feel attacked instead of aided.
Etc.
Women have much less opportunity to get casual nudges for their idea over drinks or whatever and women seem to much more often get feedback too late in the process, causing the need for very expensive major pivots instead of smaller tweaks at an earlier stage adequately changing the vector, or they get nothing but positive feedback and pats on the head like they are emotionally fragile and can't handle the truth. The result is that they have enormous difficulty doing anything worthwhile.
Sometimes women will marry the right guy and he will make a good business partner or sometimes they seem to do well starting businesses with their adult sons. But if you are a woman and not lucky enough to have one of those two scenarios, you face this huge uphill battle because so much of what is known about business is known by men and they mostly don't seem to share it with women.
I get tired of the same points being endlessly rehashed. People debate if women just lack interest or spend too much time raising children or on and on.
I actually want to get things done, including make adequate money. I can't find the answers I need and no one wants to engage those questions. I've tried. For years. I mostly get feedback that indicates I bother people and should stop being so annoying with my stupid girly questions.
As a guy how should I approach this? I actually think women in their early to mid 20s (my peers) are more qualified to star business than most guys, because they “get it” sooner, where as guys take a bit. But you’re right when I develop relationship with women it can come off as something else. Unless I’m very very professional, which frankly puts a layer of ice between people so not ideal either.
The only thing I have found that seems to go anywhere is focus on the work, not the person.
Give actual feedback on the actual project, not on her feelings, her confidence or whatever.
When I get frustrated and start expressing my feelings on HN, I routinely get sympathetic, emotionally supportive noises of the "atta girl" sort. What I need is actual engagement and that's much, much, much harder to come by.
Feelings come from somewhere. If I got what I actually needed, I wouldn't be having a hissy.
Yes kind of, but I do find a lot of people especially smart people do have confidence issues. So that’s actually what A good coach does, give you confidence, I had that and want to pass it forward. See I think focus too much on the work itself at the expense of the other persons feelings is not ideal either, so much of the stuff we do have emotional underpinnings so adressing it would be nice, I.e. low confidence.
But maybe I’m overthinking it.
I think of confidence in terms of statistical confidence. You can give people good feedback on how to determine if this is a good bet without getting all personal and emotional about it.
That doesn't mean you can't ever say anything about them. There are situations where a statement like "Yes, but you have x track record of performance." is pertinent objective feedback.
What I find problematic is men want to engage me emotionally. They want an emotional connection. They treat me like a vending machine of guaranteed good feelings.
And it has nothing to do with helping me accomplish something. It often actively interferes.
Oh I see I thought confidence as in like self belief. And yeah you bring up an interesting situation. So to summarize all the talk should be work centered right?
Work/goal oriented as much as possible. Things easily get uncomfortable and confusing otherwise.
You can be warmly supportive of their work. It doesn't have to be a cold situation. Just enthuse about their ideas, their proposal, etc rather than about how smart they are, etc.
Every time I hear of Elisabeth Holmes I get reminded of Barry Minkow and ZZZZ Best. Barry was a young attractive but shady front for a bunch of older more experienced shady characters/criminals.
28 comments
[ 3.3 ms ] story [ 76.2 ms ] threadWe also need to stop focusing just on her and also Ramesh Balwani who was just as complicit.
It is written by a defense attorney from NYC
Too bad this won’t be televised.
Source: Myself. I'm a jury consultant in SF and have picked juries in Davila's court.
I think they moved in together in 2005. She publicly claimed to be celibate and single-mindedly devoted to her company. He worked for Theranos for some years. Even her board had no idea they were romantically involved.
I wonder how much of a role their relationship played in this becoming a debacle and how reasonable it would be for her to claim she was taken advantage of by him.
https://www.bustle.com/p/whats-sunny-balwani-doing-in-2019-e...
I wish I had different questions about it. I'm a little disappointed to hear about their relationship. I almost liked it better when I was wondering if she was secretly sleeping with multiple board members or something and playing them all for a fool. Women being nothing but the playthings of men is such a tired trope.
https://www.elle.com/culture/celebrities/a28037091/elizabeth...
She was also white. And blonde. And non LGBT. And non obese.
Are all these groups now disadvantaged?
I think what is not adequately discussed is the "affinity fraud" aspect of Theranos: she got her initial funding from a parent of her childhood friends, whose house she was often over as a child. And because he is well known, the company was more easily able to recruit other investors and board members, which had the typical snowball effect.
But people act like I'm crazy for suggesting it and like I don't have valid reasons for trying to parse how this got so crazy and what her gender might have to do with how nutty this became. Trying to sort my life? -- not pertinent, clearly. A woman looking at stories about other women couldn't be trying to find an actual viable path forward for herself, no.
Or perhaps shouldn't be looking. "Status quo is god."
I basically posit that the question of sex that hangs in the air is a huge stumbling block for women. Most men know that if they are being friendly and establishing trust, this is a platonic relationship. When men and women try to be friendly and establish trust, it is easily confused for romantic behavior.
And it complicates the hell out of things. Men are very reticent to give women meaty constructive feedback. When they do, women feel attacked instead of aided.
Etc.
Women have much less opportunity to get casual nudges for their idea over drinks or whatever and women seem to much more often get feedback too late in the process, causing the need for very expensive major pivots instead of smaller tweaks at an earlier stage adequately changing the vector, or they get nothing but positive feedback and pats on the head like they are emotionally fragile and can't handle the truth. The result is that they have enormous difficulty doing anything worthwhile.
Sometimes women will marry the right guy and he will make a good business partner or sometimes they seem to do well starting businesses with their adult sons. But if you are a woman and not lucky enough to have one of those two scenarios, you face this huge uphill battle because so much of what is known about business is known by men and they mostly don't seem to share it with women.
I get tired of the same points being endlessly rehashed. People debate if women just lack interest or spend too much time raising children or on and on.
I actually want to get things done, including make adequate money. I can't find the answers I need and no one wants to engage those questions. I've tried. For years. I mostly get feedback that indicates I bother people and should stop being so annoying with my stupid girly questions.
Give actual feedback on the actual project, not on her feelings, her confidence or whatever.
When I get frustrated and start expressing my feelings on HN, I routinely get sympathetic, emotionally supportive noises of the "atta girl" sort. What I need is actual engagement and that's much, much, much harder to come by.
Feelings come from somewhere. If I got what I actually needed, I wouldn't be having a hissy.
Is that at all clear?
That doesn't mean you can't ever say anything about them. There are situations where a statement like "Yes, but you have x track record of performance." is pertinent objective feedback.
What I find problematic is men want to engage me emotionally. They want an emotional connection. They treat me like a vending machine of guaranteed good feelings.
And it has nothing to do with helping me accomplish something. It often actively interferes.
Work/goal oriented as much as possible. Things easily get uncomfortable and confusing otherwise.
You can be warmly supportive of their work. It doesn't have to be a cold situation. Just enthuse about their ideas, their proposal, etc rather than about how smart they are, etc.
https://www.investopedia.com/terms/z/zzzzbest.asp