Jump to content

Theranos' Death Rattle


TwiceHorn

Recommended Posts

Just now, SwanderedTalent said:

even if Carreyrou was 100% out to get Theranos, as in a personal vendetta, how he "got" them was revealing documented fraud Theranos committed

if I expose Lincoln Riley to the NCAA as a cheat and OU gets hauled in to the Infractions Committee, the fact that I wasn't acting altruistically doesn't mitigate the cheating in any way

Yep, it's just another example of her extraordinary narcissism/naivety  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Trey3216 said:

No doubt, but I wouldn't put anything past that crazy bitch 

Defenses do get influenced by the client.  Especially when the client is delusional, as upper-middle white chicks tend to be.  See also, Lori Loughlin.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, TwiceHorn said:

Defenses do get influenced by the client.  Especially when the client is delusional, as upper-middle white chicks tend to be.  See also, Lori Loughlin.

That's pretty much the basis of my comment.  She's completely delusional.  Hell, I wouldn't be surprised if she fired her attorneys at some point and tried the case herself thinking she could outsmart the room.  

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, SwanderedTalent said:

even if Carreyrou was 100% out to get Theranos, as in a personal vendetta, how he "got" them was revealing documented fraud Theranos committed

if I expose Lincoln Riley to the NCAA as a cheat and OU gets hauled in to the Infractions Committee, the fact that I wasn't acting altruistically doesn't mitigate the cheating in any way

 

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, SwanderedTalent said:

even if Carreyrou was 100% out to get Theranos, as in a personal vendetta, how he "got" them was revealing documented fraud Theranos committed

if I expose Lincoln Riley to the NCAA as a cheat and OU gets hauled in to the Infractions Committee, the fact that I wasn't acting altruistically doesn't mitigate the cheating in any way

So, the court is going to throw some Walgreens manager in prison?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 months later...
7 minutes ago, CooterBrown said:

“hotter”

OK, point taken.  She was not hot before; she was kind of weird looking.  Now, in this photo, she doesn't look bad.  In numerical rating, she went from a 6 to an 8.  

(Edit: "from a 5 to an 8")

Edited by Bullneck
Link to comment
Share on other sites

She is no 8. 

And apparently she hasn’t been paying her attorneys:

https://www.rollingstone.com/culture/culture-news/elizabeth-holmes-theranos-lawyers-cooley-llp-895633/

Quote

Elizabeth Holmes’ Lawyers Want Off Her Case

The Theranos founder and alleged scam artist — who is facing federal fraud charges and a class-action suit — isn’t paying her legal bills, per court filings 

By EJ DICKSON

Elizabeth Holmes, the disgraced tech wunderkind whose blood-testing startup Theranos was revealed to be based on sham science, has often been referred to as the ultimate Silicon Valley scammer. Now, she’s been accused of scamming her lawyers as well, who are asking to be removed from her employ because she hasn’t been able to pay them for their services.

In a recent court filing, Holmes’s lawyers, who are representing her against the plaintiffs of a class-action fraud lawsuit, are attempting to remove themselves from the case, claiming that they hadn’t been paid by Holmes in almost a year. According to the Washington Post, three lawyers at Cooley LLP, the Palo-Alto-based litigation firm representing Holmes in the suit, are trying to remove themselves from the case, claiming that the firm “has no expectation that Ms. Holmes will ever pay it for its services as her counsel.”

Although a judge has not yet ruled on Cooley’s request to be removed from the case, the firm was hired to represent Holmes in a massive 2016 class action lawsuit filed against her, Theranos, and the drugstore chain Walgreens, which at one point had struck a deal to offer Theranos’s blood-testing services to customers. In the lawsuit, which was filed in U.S. District Court in Phoenix in 2016, consumers allege that Holmes, Theranos and Walgreens knowingly participated in a “massive fraud” by offering the blood test, which was revealed by a Wall Street Journal investigation to have been ineffective and based on junk science.

A tech entrepreneur who once topped Forbes’ list of youngest self-made female billionaires, Holmes dropped out of Stanford University when she was just 19 to found Theranos, which she told Silicon Valley investors would revolutionize the world of diagnostic testing. Journalists and investors were captivated by Holmes’ youth, beauty, and academic credentials, and she was quickly able to amass a network of high-profile backers to help fund the company, to the degree that it was at one point valued at $9 billion.

A 2015 Wall Street Journal investigation, however, questioned the efficacy of Theranos’s blood-testing services, also shedding light on some of Holmes’ questionable management tactics and the company’s legal team’s attempts to strong-arm its critics. Facing a barrage of lawsuits, Holmes was forced to shutter Theranos in 2018, and she and her former partner Ramesh “Sunny” Balwani were indicted on federal fraud charges earlier this year.

Holmes faces up to 20 years in prison if convicted, as well as millions of dollars in fines. Her trial is scheduled for August 2020.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Bullneck said:

OK, point taken.  She was not hot before; she was kind of weird looking.  Now, in this photo, she doesn't look bad.  In numerical rating, she went from a 6 to an 8.  

(Edit: "from a 5 to an 8")

An 8? In this photo she looks like an average woman in her 30s. Therefore a 5-6. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Pato del Muerto said:

How could investors be captivated by her beauty and academic credentials when she has neither?

People are often captivated by articulate people.  Even though she had the nutty low voice, she was very articulate.  People often mistake that quality for intelligence.   She was basically a carnival barker.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Same way the Juicero raised high 8 figures.  NObody wants to be the "yeah, but..." guy.  That's the only reason I can feed my family is calling bullshit.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 11 months later...
3 minutes ago, Zwylde said:

Speculation that she is going with mental disease defense. 
 

https://www.cnn.com/2020/09/10/tech/theranos-holmes-mental-disease/index.html

I’d be shocked that a narcissist would be able to allow a mental deficiency defense.  Unless her being unfit to select her own defense is part and parcel to said defense and it’s not her choice. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, Pato del Muerto said:

I’d be shocked that a narcissist would be able to allow a mental deficiency defense.  Unless her being unfit to select her own defense is part and parcel to said defense and it’s not her choice. 

Well, alleging it is different from proving it.  Apparently, an allegation is all that is required to give the jury the option.  The feds follow the old M'Naghten rule.  Here's the jury instruction on it in the 9th Circuit.

Quote

The defendant contends [he] [she] was insane at the time of the crime. Insanity is a defense to the charge. The sanity of the defendant at the time of the crime charged is therefore a question you must decide. A defendant is insane only if at the time of the crime charged: 1. The defendant had a severe mental disease or defect; and 2. As a result, the defendant was unable to appreciate the nature and quality or the wrongfulness of [his] [her] acts. The defendant has the burden of proving the defense of insanity by clear and convincing evidence. Clear and convincing evidence of insanity means that it is highly probable that the defendant was insane at the time of the crime. Proof by clear and convincing evidence is a lower standard of proof than proof beyond a reasonable doubt. You may consider evidence of the defendant’s mental condition before or after the crime to decide whether the defendant was insane at the time of the crime. Insanity may be temporary or extended. Your finding on the question of whether the defendant was insane at the time of the crime must be unanimous. [Your verdict form will allow you to select from three possible verdicts: If you unanimously agree that the government has failed to prove the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, you must select “not guilty”; If you unanimously agree that the government has proven the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, you must select “guilty”; If you unanimously agree that the government has proven the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, but you also unanimously agree that the defendant has proven by clear and convincing evidence that [he] [she] was insane at the time of the crime charged, you must select “not guilty only by reason of insanity.”]

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Daddy wanted a son instead?

"Holmes' intends to use testimony from Dr. Mindy Mechanic, who is referenced by last name in the filing.

A clinical psychologist at California State University, Fullerton, Mechanic's "work focuses on the psychosocial consequences of violence, trauma and victimization with an emphasis on violence against women and other forms of interpersonal violence," according to the University's website."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Convincing a narcissist to use a mental defect defense would be a fascinating exercise in reverse manipulation.

She would have to be convinced that she can outsmart the prosecutor and jury by “faking” being a nutcase, when in fact she is. 

She’ll never take the stand but if she did that testimony and cross would be amazing to see. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, millhouse said:

Imagine the shit show if this fraud was still in business promising finger prick COVID tests with 30 min turn time

She wouldn’t waste time with a finger prick.  It would be a used airport metal detector that you walked through for a text.  Some Xmas lights and crepe paper to redecorate it and you have a $20b market valuation.  

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Reagan1k said:

Convincing a narcissist to use a mental defect defense would be a fascinating exercise in reverse manipulation.

She would have to be convinced that she can outsmart the prosecutor and jury by “faking” being a nutcase, when in fact she is. 

She’ll never take the stand but if she did that testimony and cross would be amazing to see. 

I'm pretty sure she already thinks she can outsmart the prosecutor and jury.  Faking being a nutcase is the easy part.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Reagan1k said:

She wouldn’t waste time with a finger prick.  It would be a used airport metal detector that you walked through for a text.  Some Xmas lights and crepe paper to redecorate it and you have a $20b market valuation.  

The Silicon Valley series on HBO should have switched gears and deal with the medical startups, because I can picture this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, atomheartbevo said:

I'm pretty sure she already thinks she can outsmart the prosecutor and jury.  Faking being a nutcase is the easy part.

“Look Elizabeth, we know you were a week away from revolutionizing medicine and all these idiots just don’t understand brilliance when they see it, but we’re going to need you to act like.......”

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.



×
×
  • Create New...