I never empathized with her up until watching this video. Shaky-cam, typical parking lot, normal clothes. That could be me!
My guess is she was nervous and a bit excited, with some background resignation. Almost first-day-of-school vibes. Minimum-security must be a lot like the outside world, with less freedom. Another world to explore and take root in. Life goes on.
I have zero empathy for her. Defrauding actual medical patients is pretty bad.
>> Brittany Gould testified that in 2014 she took a Theranos blood test at a Walgreens store in Arizona to measure a pregnancy hormone after learning that was expecting a baby, CNBC reports. After reviewing the results, Gould shared during the trial, "[My nurse practitioner] told me your numbers are falling, unfortunately, and that I was miscarrying." Because of those results, she switched her medication to something potentially harmful to the fetus. However, Gould took two more tests administered by Quest Diagnostics that confirmed she was still pregnant. She eventually delivered a healthy baby.[1]
Besides, Martha Stewart, a past inmate, rebuilt her empire after insider trading, and was recently on Sports Illustrated! So I'm sure Holmes will bounce back.
I lost all sympathy when she had two children while awaiting a trial that would almost certainly end in a lengthy prison sentence. Of course she used that fact to reduce her sentence. Considering that she's also pretty old (39 now), she likely went to fertility treatment to get pregnant. I don't understand how a woman could willfully have children knowing she won't be around to raise them and try to use them for leverage. Really sociopathic behavior
Seems terrible, but maybe that ole biological clock was kicking in and she figured she'd not get a chance in prison? Though she'd seem type to try and to something sociopathic too.
It sounds pretty natural, actually. Wanting to have children is probably one of the most overwhelming natural directives we face. It was her last shot at it because she might well be menopausal when she comes out, depending on how much she actually serves.
It's not sociopathic to want children and to take your only shot at them. If you think you could perhaps get out in 5 years, you've missed some early years but your children will grow to love you. If you'd waited you'd be childless since that is a risky pregnancy at 44.
In her place, I would do the same, and I"m not a sociopath by any means.
It was a choice between having kids or not having them at all. At her age, delaying was not an option. People have kids in all kinds of terrible situations and hers is not that bad. She has supportive families on both her and her husband sides so I am sure kids will be fine. She can read books to them on the phone, there are visits, etc.
Also, the question of who should have kids and under what circumstances has been a matter of debate for centuries. There are so many strong, different opinions that whatever one says will probably insult someone else. I do not believe there can be consensus on this topic.
Yeah, that's the image of herself she's been trying to paint recently, with the help of some media outlets[1].
In the same article, she and the author also claim that what she did was influenced by the world putting good women like her down - the sexism argument:
> Ms. Holmes said she believed that making herself the poster girl for women in tech put a huge target on her back.
> Don’t girl boss too close to the sun, or this could happen to you …
I think at a certain level of obvious sociopathy, all this grasping of straws to rehabilitate one's image (and in some cases shed the blame) are useless. I would hope no one genuinely thinks that her wearing pastel colours and using a couple of kids as leverage makes her any less of a criminal who would have been willing to commit medical fraud and kill others out of greed.
As someone who hasn’t followed the details of the case, was her long prison sentence mainly because she defrauded investors rather than knowingly falsifying medical tests?
Not that this is the right forum to re-try her case, but I'm actually shocked she got 11 years and I might even argue that is far more than she deserves if she was acquitted on the patient side. The problem appears that these statutes are based on dollar amounts of the fraud -- $140 million according to https://www.justice.gov/usao-ndca/pr/elizabeth-holmes-senten.... Yes that's a lot of money but the investors themselves, how many of them were really damaged in any meaningful way? A few billionaires -- DeVos, Murdoch, Walton -- lost many millions, but what is that, 2 or 3% of their net worth? I'm sure there are some less-wealthy people on the investor list as well but I'm guessing nobody got their life savings wiped out. Defrauding the public, as opposed to some very wealthy investors, seems like a lot more serious crime.
She was convicted on charges related to defrauding investors and acquitted on charges related to defrauding patients. A juror told the WSJ “the jury concluded that prosecutors didn’t present enough evidence to show that Ms. Holmes knowingly pitched a faulty product to induce patients to pay for tests.“[1] Take that for what you will. I think it was easier to prove the defrauding the investors part. We know Holmes gave investors certain documents. We know those documents were full of lies. The juror described that as a smoking gun, and I don’t think there was any evidence so clear-cut on the patient side.
> “I am devastated by my failings,” she said. “Every day for the past years I have felt deep pain for what people went through because I failed them. I regret my failings with every cell of my body.”
I would award her with additional jail time just for uttering such bullshit.
> She…has been ordered to pay $452m in restitution to victims of the fraud.
With what? Does she still have that kind of money? And if she doesn’t, couldn’t she declare bankruptcy to get out of her obligation?
I don’t understand the point of having an unrealistic number like that. It would make more sense for Theranos to pay the restitution (since the entity raised the $$ and likely has the means).
I hope not. We already have enough people who are "experts" because they have read books and articles. Dont need another one who then goes on to create yet another startup because now they are the experts.
I can't help but feel that the whole board should also be facing charges. People who should have known better got stars in their eyes such that Holmes shouldn't be the only one facing punishment.
It's interesting. All the damage is already done. No harm done is repaired and no direct risk exists if she were free. But it has to be done so that the realistic threat exists for the next person.
Except she's probably a sociopath who acted without regard to consequence, and the next person with enough leverage who is also sociopath will likewise not be deterred, even by an example of a sociopath who acted without regard to consequence and went to prison.
It's an important value. We want justice in our lives and in our society. People will sometimes sue others when a potential remedy doesn't cover the costs. And society will permit certain individuals an excursion outside social norms when they have been wronged to restore justice. For example, we consider punching bullies and thieves back acceptable, and we have many movies and video games where a hero is morally permitted violence and committing serious crimes to bring justice back to society. It's hard to say where this need for justice as a core value comes from in our culture, but it is definitely there.
And in this case, society has been wronged. Rendering justice allows it to stay true to its values. Why these values are the way they are is interesting, indeed. But putting Holmes in prison aligns with them.
46 comments
[ 4.4 ms ] story [ 101 ms ] threadMy guess is she was nervous and a bit excited, with some background resignation. Almost first-day-of-school vibes. Minimum-security must be a lot like the outside world, with less freedom. Another world to explore and take root in. Life goes on.
>> Brittany Gould testified that in 2014 she took a Theranos blood test at a Walgreens store in Arizona to measure a pregnancy hormone after learning that was expecting a baby, CNBC reports. After reviewing the results, Gould shared during the trial, "[My nurse practitioner] told me your numbers are falling, unfortunately, and that I was miscarrying." Because of those results, she switched her medication to something potentially harmful to the fetus. However, Gould took two more tests administered by Quest Diagnostics that confirmed she was still pregnant. She eventually delivered a healthy baby.[1]
[1] https://www.popsugar.com/entertainment/what-happened-to-eliz...
Besides, Martha Stewart, a past inmate, rebuilt her empire after insider trading, and was recently on Sports Illustrated! So I'm sure Holmes will bounce back.
I'm not excusing choices. Just saying we all sh*t on a toilet.
In her place, I would do the same, and I"m not a sociopath by any means.
But be very careful about dictating the allowable requirements for having progeny.
Historically speaking, it's a tricky area.
In the same article, she and the author also claim that what she did was influenced by the world putting good women like her down - the sexism argument:
> Ms. Holmes said she believed that making herself the poster girl for women in tech put a huge target on her back.
> Don’t girl boss too close to the sun, or this could happen to you …
I think at a certain level of obvious sociopathy, all this grasping of straws to rehabilitate one's image (and in some cases shed the blame) are useless. I would hope no one genuinely thinks that her wearing pastel colours and using a couple of kids as leverage makes her any less of a criminal who would have been willing to commit medical fraud and kill others out of greed.
[1] https://archive.is/Ajkoz
https://www.mercurynews.com/2022/01/03/elizabeth-holmes-tria...
If I had to put a number on it, I'd say the damage was ~$140m worth.
[1] https://archive.ph/zyLQ6
I would award her with additional jail time just for uttering such bullshit.
With what? Does she still have that kind of money? And if she doesn’t, couldn’t she declare bankruptcy to get out of her obligation?
I don’t understand the point of having an unrealistic number like that. It would make more sense for Theranos to pay the restitution (since the entity raised the $$ and likely has the means).
It's an important value. We want justice in our lives and in our society. People will sometimes sue others when a potential remedy doesn't cover the costs. And society will permit certain individuals an excursion outside social norms when they have been wronged to restore justice. For example, we consider punching bullies and thieves back acceptable, and we have many movies and video games where a hero is morally permitted violence and committing serious crimes to bring justice back to society. It's hard to say where this need for justice as a core value comes from in our culture, but it is definitely there.
And in this case, society has been wronged. Rendering justice allows it to stay true to its values. Why these values are the way they are is interesting, indeed. But putting Holmes in prison aligns with them.
She would just murder again…