Recommended by Ricochet Members Created with Sketch. Not Guilty by Reason of Psychopathy?

 

Elizabeth Holmes, indicted CEO of now-defunct Theranos, is apparently to going to mount an insanity defense in her federal fraud trial. Crazy clever, no? The standard she must meet is, as described by Noah Feldman, is

whether the defendant knew what she was doing, and whether she knew it was wrong.

Unlike some states, federal law does not permit irresistible impulse or substantial capacity defenses. It focuses solely on awareness of one’s act and whether those acts were known to be wrong. According to Feldman:

What would make this defense so difficult to prove is that, at least based on public reports, there appears to be plenty of evidence that Holmes sought to conceal not only the fact that the company’s devices didn’t work, but also the fact that she was lying about that. Ordinarily, prosecutors can show the jury that a defendant wasn’t insane under the federal definition by demonstrating consciousness of guilt. A defendant who has tried to hide her crimes must’ve known that she did something wrong. And if she knew she was doing something wrong, she wasn’t legally insane under the federal standard.

And herein lies an important point: even if you don’t see it as wrong to do something, you are not insane if you understand that most other people do. And that is the reason that psychopaths don’t have a “get out of jail free” card. A psychopath is a person who can easily flout social convention for their own preferences in ways that harm others to various degrees without hesitation or guilt–

The triarchic model[1] suggests that different conceptions of psychopathy emphasize three observable characteristics to various degrees. Analyses have been made with respect to the applicability of measurement tools such as the Psychopathy Checklist (PCL, PCL-R) and Psychopathic Personality Inventory (PPI) to this model.[1][4]

  • Boldness. Low fear including stress-tolerance, toleration of unfamiliarity and danger, and high self-confidence and social assertiveness. The PCL-R measures this relatively poorly and mainly through Facet 1 of Factor 1. Similar to PPI Fearless dominance. May correspond to differences in the amygdala and other neurological systems associated with fear.[1][4]
  • Disinhibition. Poor impulse control including problems with planning and foresight, lacking affect and urge control, demand for immediate gratification, and poor behavioral restraints. Similar to PCL-R Factor 2 and PPI Impulsive antisociality. May correspond to impairments in frontal lobesystems that are involved in such control.[1][4]
  • Meanness. Lacking empathy and close attachments with others, disdain of close attachments, use of cruelty to gain empowerment, exploitative tendencies, defiance of authority, and destructive excitement seeking. The PCL-R in general is related to this but in particular some elements in Factor 1. Similar to PPI, but also includes elements of subscales in Impulsive antisociality.[1][4]

Not all psychopaths are criminals, but many of our most devastating criminals are psychopaths.

I am not a psychiatrist or a psychologist (but I did stay at a Holiday Inn at least once). But I am prepared to state that Elizabeth Holmes is a psychopath. And because I am not a psychiatrist or a psychologist there is no consequence for me diagnosing her from afar. It will become evident to the jury that Ms. Holmes is a psychopath, but it will apparently be asserted she was made so and has some mental damage that excuses her from punishment.

And if the jury is comprised of a bunch of Karens fearing COVID-19 more than “mere economic damage,” she just might get away with it. I hope the prosecution features some of those retirees that invested in her company to their great harm. “It’s only money” is a great slogan unless it was your bank account that was drained.

Remember psychopathy is different from delusional. Psychopaths don’t feel bad about what they are doing, but they know what they are doing and, when the possibility exists that they will be stopped from doing it, they take action to assure that they can continue to do it. That’s not insane, it’s evil.

Published in General
This post was promoted to the Main Feed by a Ricochet Editor at the recommendation of Ricochet members. Like this post? Want to comment? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Get your first month free.

There are 57 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. MISTER BITCOIN Member

    Holmes has no shortage of confidence.

    She thinks she can con anyone.

     

    • #1
    • September 13, 2020, at 12:24 PM PDT
    • 5 likes
  2. CACrabtree Coolidge

    No doubt, Holmes is a reprehensible character. I didn’t know that she was going to mount an insanity defense. I always thought that she would portray herself as a feminist that had been wronged by a male-dominated society.

    Holmes has been a fraud from the start with her affinity for Steve Jobs attire (turtlenecks) and faux feminist causes (ex. #IronSisters which was to help women in STEM fields).

    I suspect that Hollywood will be getting involved in the coming months with Cate Blanchett or someone like that being in the starring role. Heck, they’re still making money off Betty Broderick; can you imagine how much they’ll make off someone much more photogenic?

    As for me, I’ll wait until Theranos and Holmes are featured on American Greed.

    • #2
    • September 13, 2020, at 12:25 PM PDT
    • 3 likes
  3. MISTER BITCOIN Member

    CACrabtree (View Comment):

    No doubt, Holmes is a reprehensible character. I didn’t know that she was going to mount an insanity defense. I always thought that she would portray herself as a feminist that had been wronged by a male-dominated society.

    Holmes has been a fraud from the start with her affinity for Steve Jobs attire (turtlenecks) and faux feminist causes (ex. #IronSisters which was to help women in STEM fields).

    I suspect that Hollywood will be getting involved in the coming months with Cate Blanchett or someone like that being in the starring role. Heck, they’re still making money off Betty Broderick; can you imagine how much they’ll make off someone much more photogenic?

    As for me, I’ll wait until Theranos and Holmes are featured on American Greed.

    HBO has a good documentary about her and Theranos. I think it’s available for free on YouTube.

     

    • #3
    • September 13, 2020, at 12:27 PM PDT
    • 1 like
  4. Susan Quinn Contributor

    She does meet the profile, but I have a hard time imagining that she admitted being a psychopath. I’m guessing her attorney convinced her it was her only defense. 

    • #4
    • September 13, 2020, at 12:29 PM PDT
    • 2 likes
  5. MISTER BITCOIN Member

    She was able to get away with the fraud of Theranos as long as she did because Silicon Valley was desperate for a female disruptor.

    A guy in her shoes would have been shut down immediately.

     

    • #5
    • September 13, 2020, at 12:31 PM PDT
    • 7 likes
  6. CACrabtree Coolidge

    MISTER BITCOIN (View Comment):

    She was able to get away with the fraud of Theranos as long as she did because Silicon Valley was desperate for a female disruptor.

    A guy in her shoes would have been shut down immediately.

     

    She must

    MISTER BITCOIN (View Comment):

    She was able to get away with the fraud of Theranos as long as she did because Silicon Valley was desperate for a female disruptor.

    A guy in her shoes would have been shut down immediately.

     

    Evidently B.S. and good looks go a long way. Rupert Murdoch, the Walton Family, and the DeVos family were among the major investors in Theranos. Overall, investors lost hundreds of millions of dollars. On the board of the company were George Shultz, Henry Kissinger, James Mattis and other high profile people who were completely taken in. It appears that greed overcomes common sense every day of the week.

    It’s humorous (at least, to me) that, among her many awards, was being named as one of Time magazine’s Most Influential People in the World.

    • #6
    • September 13, 2020, at 12:50 PM PDT
    • 7 likes
  7. Bob Wainwright Member

    The insanity defense has always puzzled me. It includes the assertion that the defendant didn’t know that what he or she did was morally wrong. As the article you linked to mentions, this doesn’t mean that they didn’t know it was illegal. That’s never an excuse. You have to show that they didn’t know it was morally wrong.

    So for example what if someone truly doesn’t believe that insider trading is morally wrong? There are plenty of people who actually think it should be legal precisely because it’s not morally wrong (or so they claim). Then there’s the example of someone like Adolf Eichmann who might claim he truly didn’t think what he did was wrong.

    It seems that that test shouldn’t be part of the insanity defense. It should be reserved for defendants who can prove that they didn’t understand what they were doing when they did it.

    • #7
    • September 13, 2020, at 1:04 PM PDT
    • 4 likes
    • This comment has been edited.
  8. Susan Quinn Contributor

    Having known a psychopath, I had the impression that they do know right from wrong; they just don’t care.

    • #8
    • September 13, 2020, at 1:14 PM PDT
    • 9 likes
  9. CACrabtree Coolidge

    Susan Quinn (View Comment):

    Having known a psychopath, I had the impression that they do know right from wrong; they just don’t care.

    They seem to always have an end game; which would seem to defeat the entire defense that they can’t grasp what they’re doing. But…what do I know?

    • #9
    • September 13, 2020, at 1:31 PM PDT
    • 5 likes
  10. kedavis Member

    Rodin: I hope the prosecution features some of those retirees that invested in her company to their great harm. “It’s only money” is a great slogan unless it was your bank account that was drained.

    But none of those people will be jurors, so why should they care?

    • #10
    • September 13, 2020, at 2:31 PM PDT
    • 1 like
  11. Flicker Coolidge

    From my current understanding, psychopath is not a clinical diagnosis, at least according to the DSM-V; sociopath is but psychopath is more a lay term. It is at best an adjective, or a “specifier” of a particular psychological trait or set of traits.

    Insanity is not a medical term either; it is a legal term; and from what I understand it means that the defendant wasn’t in touch with reality at the time of the crime, and didn’t cognitively know what he was doing. But for example, say, a person who beats someone else, but thinks that he is putting the victim to bed and tucking him in at the time, is insane and therefore not guilty of the crime. And technically, I suppose, everyone is insane at least once a day, while asleep.

    The term psychopath is a moral term, which goes back to the 1800s with early investigations of “moral illness”, in which the patient knows what he’s doing but doesn’t care about his effects on others, but cares only about his own motives, successes, and gratification.

    • #11
    • September 13, 2020, at 2:49 PM PDT
    • 4 likes
  12. kedavis Member

    Flicker (View Comment):
    The term psychopath is a moral term, which goes back to the 1800s with early investigations of “moral illness”, in which the patient knows what he’s doing but doesn’t care about his effects on others, but cares only about his own motives, successes, and gratification.

    That sounds more like sociopath.

    • #12
    • September 13, 2020, at 2:51 PM PDT
    • 4 likes
  13. CACrabtree Coolidge

    Flicker (View Comment):

    From my current understanding, psychopath is not a clinical diagnosis, at least according to the DSM-V; sociopath is but psychopath is more a lay term. It is at best an adjective, or a “specifier” of a particular psychological trait or set of traits.

    Insanity is not a medical term either; it is a legal term; and from what I understand it means that the defendant wasn’t in touch with reality at the time of the crime, and didn’t cognitively know what he was doing. But for example, say, a person who beats someone else, but thinks that he is putting the victim to bed and tucking him in at the time, is insane and therefore not guilty of the crime. And technically, I suppose, everyone is insane at least once a day, while asleep.

    The term psychopath is a moral term, which goes back to the 1800s with early investigations of “moral illness”, in which the patient knows what he’s doing but doesn’t care about his effects on others, but cares only about his own motives, successes, and gratification.

    Hmmm, that last paragraph sounds suspiciously close to the definition for “politician”. Probably just a coincidence…

    • #13
    • September 13, 2020, at 2:54 PM PDT
    • 5 likes
  14. Flicker Coolidge

    kedavis (View Comment):

    Flicker (View Comment):
    The term psychopath is a moral term, which goes back to the 1800s with early investigations of “moral illness”, in which the patient knows what he’s doing but doesn’t care about his effects on others, but cares only about his own motives, successes, and gratification.

    That sounds more like sociopath.

    Sociopath is the new term for psychopath. It includes a more diverse set of types of behaviors, and behaviors are graded as to severity and functionality. The term psychopath tends to be reserved for what could be called the classic psychopath, the villain, the intelligent, cold and calculating folks who are overtly criminal in their behaviors, but this is now relegated more or less to social usage.

    • #14
    • September 13, 2020, at 4:04 PM PDT
    • 1 like
  15. Flicker Coolidge

    CACrabtree (View Comment):

    Flicker (View Comment):

    From my current understanding, psychopath is not a clinical diagnosis, at least according to the DSM-V; sociopath is but psychopath is more a lay term. It is at best an adjective, or a “specifier” of a particular psychological trait or set of traits.

    Insanity is not a medical term either; it is a legal term; and from what I understand it means that the defendant wasn’t in touch with reality at the time of the crime, and didn’t cognitively know what he was doing. But for example, say, a person who beats someone else, but thinks that he is putting the victim to bed and tucking him in at the time, is insane and therefore not guilty of the crime. And technically, I suppose, everyone is insane at least once a day, while asleep.

    The term psychopath is a moral term, which goes back to the 1800s with early investigations of “moral illness”, in which the patient knows what he’s doing but doesn’t care about his effects on others, but cares only about his own motives, successes, and gratification.

    Hmmm, that last paragraph sounds suspiciously close to the definition for “politician”. Probably just a coincidence…

    Or CEO.

    • #15
    • September 13, 2020, at 4:05 PM PDT
    • 3 likes
  16. Barfly Member

    Flicker (View Comment):

    kedavis (View Comment):

    Flicker (View Comment):
    The term psychopath is a moral term, which goes back to the 1800s with early investigations of “moral illness”, in which the patient knows what he’s doing but doesn’t care about his effects on others, but cares only about his own motives, successes, and gratification.

    That sounds more like sociopath.

    Sociopath is the new term for psychopath. It includes a more diverse set of types of behaviors, and behaviors are graded as to severity and functionality. The term psychopath tends to be reserved for what could be called the classic psychopath, the villain, the intelligent, cold and calculating folks who are overtly criminal in their behaviors, but this is now relegated more or less to social usage.

    I recently heard a pshrink claim that psychopaths are born while sociopaths are made. I’m willing to take that kind of bipolar definition and read into it that there’s a spectrum; specialists have to take their audience into account.

    I suggest one way to view the distinction is the degree to which the person inherits the physical traits, notably a badly functioning amygdala. Nobody with a normal healthy brain becomes either a psychopath or sociopath. People are susceptible to early environment to the degree of their physical impairment. Some people have the mutation out of the womb to such a degree that they’d go bad no matter what childhood they had – these are the kids who hurt animals and start fires. Psychopaths, and they’re all incurable. Some are less broken but endure misfortune that burns out their already-weak empathy, and exhibit the lesser complex we kind-of-sort-of call sociopathy.

     

    • #16
    • September 13, 2020, at 4:13 PM PDT
    • 3 likes
  17. CACrabtree Coolidge

    Flicker (View Comment):

    CACrabtree (View Comment):

    Flicker (View Comment):

    From my current understanding, psychopath is not a clinical diagnosis, at least according to the DSM-V; sociopath is but psychopath is more a lay term. It is at best an adjective, or a “specifier” of a particular psychological trait or set of traits.

    Insanity is not a medical term either; it is a legal term; and from what I understand it means that the defendant wasn’t in touch with reality at the time of the crime, and didn’t cognitively know what he was doing. But for example, say, a person who beats someone else, but thinks that he is putting the victim to bed and tucking him in at the time, is insane and therefore not guilty of the crime. And technically, I suppose, everyone is insane at least once a day, while asleep.

    The term psychopath is a moral term, which goes back to the 1800s with early investigations of “moral illness”, in which the patient knows what he’s doing but doesn’t care about his effects on others, but cares only about his own motives, successes, and gratification.

    Hmmm, that last paragraph sounds suspiciously close to the definition for “politician”. Probably just a coincidence…

    Or CEO.

    Good point…

    • #17
    • September 13, 2020, at 4:26 PM PDT
    • 2 likes
  18. Flicker Coolidge

    Barfly (View Comment):

    Flicker (View Comment):

    Sociopath is the new term for psychopath. It includes a more diverse set of types of behaviors, and behaviors are graded as to severity and functionality. The term psychopath tends to be reserved for what could be called the classic psychopath, the villain, the intelligent, cold and calculating folks who are overtly criminal in their behaviors, but this is now relegated more or less to social usage.

    I recently heard a pshrink claim that psychopaths are born while sociopaths are made. I’m willing to take that kind of bipolar definition and read into it that there’s a spectrum; specialists have to take their audience into account.

    I suggest one way to view the distinction is the degree to which the person inherits the physical traits, notably a badly functioning amygdala. Nobody with a normal healthy brain becomes either a psychopath or sociopath. People are susceptible to early environment to the degree of their physical impairment. Some people have the mutation out of the womb to such a degree that they’d go bad no matter what childhood they had – these are the kids who hurt animals and start fires. Psychopaths, and they’re all incurable. Some are less broken but endure misfortune that burns out their already-weak empathy, and iexhibit the lesser complex we kind-of-sort-of call sociopathy.

    Well, first of all there are no psychopaths anymore, by definition: and anyone who speaks about the differences between sociopaths and psychopaths is, in my view, playing to the audience so to speak. For example, I’ve seen youtube videos of psychologists (as opposed to psychiatrists) saying so profoundly opinionated things about how to diagnose a psychopath in your circle of acquaintances, and I think these psychologists are acting unconscionably. So if you heard this from a friend that you respect, then I would think it bears more weight.

    The most common differentiation formerly between sociopath and psychopath is a matter of degree and style: psychopath was a more pure, criminally-oriented expression and sociopath was a more diffuse, socially-oriented expression.

    I’m skeptical of a purely physiological explanation for consciencelessness, like a recessive gene or a defective amygdala; though it may often be so: as with all questions of human experience, it’s a question of nature versus nurture or both. Sure there’s always the evidence to be found of craziness of one degree or another in the family someplace, which indicates at least superficially a genetic or neurological component, but a conscience very well has to be taught, either consciously or subliminally, either by the parents or by members of the greater society. The degree to which the dominant parent is capable of experiencing a healthy conscience and his interest in demonstrating it, seems to me to be far simpler to see and assess. But of course, we may never know.

    One more thing. There are societies today which produce what by American standards are predominantly psychopaths.

    • #18
    • September 13, 2020, at 5:42 PM PDT
    • 1 like
  19. Barfly Member

    Flicker (View Comment):
    One more thing. There are societies today which produce what by American standards are predominantly psychopaths.

    These come to mind: the Pashtun, the Germans, and the AMA.

    • #19
    • September 13, 2020, at 6:32 PM PDT
    • 4 likes
  20. Flicker Coolidge

    Barfly (View Comment):

    Flicker (View Comment):
    One more thing. There are societies today which produce what by American standards are predominantly psychopaths.

    These come to mind: the Pashtun, the Germans, and the AMA.

    I was thinking more of the N. Koreans, the Chinese, and certain mohammedan sects.

    • #20
    • September 13, 2020, at 6:46 PM PDT
    • 2 likes
  21. Fritz Coolidge

    Just read Bad Blood, the book on the whole Theranos scandal, and IMO, from the documents quoted at length, it will appear clear as day that Holmes knew exactly what she was doing. The whole thing mught have started out sincerely, but it became a scam as she so ardently believed she was a world-historical figure out to change the world that she justified all the lying, deceit and intimidation as necessary to bring the wonderfulness of her visions to reality, so it was all just hunky dory.

    Lying to her investors, neutering her board to grant her super voting power, i.e., 100 votes for each share she owned, thus giving over 99% of the voting power to herself, false reports of research, testing reliability, and so forth to federal and state regulators, intimidating would-be whistle blowers and other ex-employees . . . and on and on.

    One episode — an entire “automated laboratory” conjured up Potemkin village-style under her tight control from bogus props (because the real thing did not exist, and what machines there were were unreliable) through which to parade a highly publicized visit by VP Joe Biden (!), leaves little room for doubt as to her knowing and fraudulent intent. There are many other examples in the book.

    IMO, the psychological angle is just another manipulative ploy by her, not to avoid guilt so much as to lay a basis to claim she was somehow impaired and so should get off with lighter punishment if convicted.

    • #21
    • September 13, 2020, at 8:46 PM PDT
    • 6 likes
  22. Instugator Thatcher
    InstugatorJoined in the first year of Ricochet Ricochet Charter Member

    Rodin: but I did stay at a Holiday Inn at least once

    Doesn’t count unless it was a Holiday Inn Express.

    • #22
    • September 14, 2020, at 7:25 AM PDT
    • 5 likes
  23. MichaelKennedy Coolidge

    Flicker (View Comment):

    Barfly (View Comment):

    Flicker (View Comment):

    Sociopath is the new term for psychopath. It includes a more diverse set of types of behaviors, and behaviors are graded as to severity and functionality. The term psychopath tends to be reserved for what could be called the classic psychopath, the villain, the intelligent, cold and calculating folks who are overtly criminal in their behaviors, but this is now relegated more or less to social usage.

    I recently heard a pshrink claim that psychopaths are born while sociopaths are made. I’m willing to take that kind of bipolar definition and read into it that there’s a spectrum; specialists have to take their audience into account.

    I suggest one way to view the distinction is the degree to which the person inherits the physical traits, notably a badly functioning amygdala. Nobody with a normal healthy brain becomes either a psychopath or sociopath. People are susceptible to early environment to the degree of their physical impairment. Some people have the mutation out of the womb to such a degree that they’d go bad no matter what childhood they had – these are the kids who hurt animals and start fires. Psychopaths, and they’re all incurable. Some are less broken but endure misfortune that burns out their already-weak empathy, and iexhibit the lesser complex we kind-of-sort-of call sociopathy.

    Well, first of all there are no psychopaths anymore, by definition: and anyone who speaks about the differences between sociopaths and psychopaths is, in my view, playing to the audience so to speak. For example, I’ve seen youtube videos of psychologists (as opposed to psychiatrists) saying so profoundly opinionated things about how to diagnose a psychopath in your circle of acquaintances, and I think these psychologists are acting unconscionably. So if you heard this from a friend that you respect, then I would think it bears more weight.

    The most common differentiation formerly between sociopath and psychopath is a matter of degree and style: psychopath was a more pure, criminally-oriented expression and sociopath was a more diffuse, socially-oriented expression.

    I’m skeptical of a purely physiological explanation for consciencelessness, like a recessive gene or a defective amygdala; though it may often be so: as with all questions of human experience, it’s a question of nature versus nurture or both. Sure there’s always the evidence to be found of craziness of one degree or another in the family someplace, which indicates at least superficially a genetic or neurological component, but a conscience very well has to be taught, either consciously or subliminally, either by the parents or by members of the greater society.

    snip

    Plomin’s book, “Blueprint” makes a pretty good case that behavior is mostly genetic, 50% by adulthood. Childhood is more susceptible to parenting effects but by adulthood they are less important.

    https://www.amazon.com/Blueprint-new-afterword-How-Makes-ebook/dp/B08BT69SZK/

     

    • #23
    • September 14, 2020, at 8:07 AM PDT
    • 4 likes
  24. Henry Racette Contributor

    I’ll second @fritz‘s implied endorsement of Bad Blood, which does a fine job of documenting the arc of Ms. Holmes and her company.

    Having read that book and watched the documentary about the company (which was also quite good), I came away convinced that Ms. Holmes started out honestly believing that she was going to change the world. In a sense, it was her bad luck to choose a goal that she couldn’t even approach, and to have pursued it in a field in which, given the nature of medical regulation, her failure must ultimately be revealed. I think she has some psychological issues, but I also think that, had she chosen a goal more attainable than the one she did, her combination of passion, energy, charisma, fearlessness, and utter disregard for the truth might well have been sufficient to bring her success.

    Affected wardrobe aside, she actually is a lot like the late great Steve Jobs, who was similarly charismatic and persuasive — and similarly unconstrained by a strict fidelity to the truth.

    One could imagine the two of them working (okay, conspiring) together to create the first great mass-market consumer healthcare electronic appliance, the iPhone of blood analyzers. They would have ruled the world….

    • #24
    • September 14, 2020, at 8:12 AM PDT
    • 6 likes
  25. MarciN Member

    Hollywood and the Wall Street Journal are turning this story into a story about a single beautiful young woman because it’s sexy and it sells. Letting her become this icon of business evil conveniently lets the Theranos board of directors, upper-level executives, celebrity endorsers, and investors off the hook. 

    Reading this story and knowing the Silicon Valley context and culture in which it occurred is terribly important in judging her mental ability–everything was shadowy. California really looked a lot like the old Hollywood when Hollywood had a monopoly on the movie industry. Steve Jobs had to be bailed out by Bill Gates. Successes and failures were truly overnight phenomena. 

    I find the misrepresentation angle interesting. There’s a story that goes around the business world, told to encourage entrepreneurs, that FedEx took a long time to get off the ground, and in fact, it promised a level of computerized tracking that did not exist in the beginning. The couriers would carry something that looked like an iPad, but it wasn’t connected to anything. This “sham” enabled FedEx to stay afloat while it earned enough money to develop the computerized tracking system. It’s a story told to encourage entrepreneurs to “fake it until you make it.” 

    There was a lot of loss for Theranos investors, but I blame all of the celebrities who did not do their homework as much as I blame Holmes. They were like little kids who see Santa Claus on every block. I saw an interesting interview with a child psychologist who was asked, “Why do kids persist in believing in Santa Claus when everything around them tells them he can’t be real?” The psychologist said, “Because they want to believe. They want it to be true.”

    These were crazy Gold Rush years–dot-com II–in California. 

    Prosecutors want to make a fortune off of this star-studded case. And they will. Talk about immorality . . . 

    The long-term big losers will be small investors who are being told increasingly that they have to stay out of the market because they are too innocent and stupid to evaluate risk. 

     

     

    • #25
    • September 14, 2020, at 8:49 AM PDT
    • 3 likes
  26. Ontheleftcoast Member

    CACrabtree (View Comment):
    On the board of the company were George Shultz, Henry Kissinger, James Mattis and other high profile people, mostly men, who were completely taken in. It appears that greed, especially combined with other drives overcomes common sense every day of the week.

    FIFY

    • #26
    • September 14, 2020, at 8:49 AM PDT
    • 1 like
  27. MarciN Member

    I suspect there is a lot more to this story than we are being told by the press and prosecutors right now. 

    What Holmes was trying to do is possible. The idea of a painless injection to draw blood isn’t at all crazy. I had a flu shot a couple of years ago that I didn’t feel. I came home and told my husband that these new injectors should be illegal. “You should know if you’ve been injected with something!” :-) So that’s possible. As far as a computer program that could analyze a blood sample for certain characteristics–that’s possible too. 

    I’m guessing that her investors became impatient. And that people don’t like Holmes. And that possibly some of her star developers either sabotaged the projects in the works or are secretly developing these program for other companies now. 

    None of this story the way I have read it makes any sense. 

    I don’t think she is crazy, I don’t think she is a psychopath, and I don’t think she is a criminal. 

    • #27
    • September 14, 2020, at 9:43 AM PDT
    • 1 like
  28. Old Bathos Moderator

    Susan Quinn (View Comment):

    Having known a psychopath, I had the impression that they do know right from wrong; they just don’t care.

    I think it is a defense aimed more at sentencing than the verdict. It is a long shot but maybe some jurors will buy it. I think it’s a tough sell.

    Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, we can’t say she learned her lesson because she is largely incapable of learning that kind of lesson so there is no point is punishment to impose that lesson. Instead, she should be in therapy to learn how to deal with her complete absence of remorse, honesty, or empathy. We ask that you have pity precisely because that’s one of the feelings she is incapable of having.

    Kinda like:

    Gentlemen of the tribunal, the defense has shown beyond a reasonable doubt that my client Hermann Göring was utterly indifferent to the suffering he knowingly conspired to bring about. How can anyone so incapable of caring, empathy, and normal human emotion be held accountable for these kinds of acts? 

     

     

    • #28
    • September 14, 2020, at 9:46 AM PDT
    • 2 likes
  29. Rodin Member
    Rodin

    MarciN (View Comment):

    I suspect there is a lot more to this story than we are being told by the press and prosecutors right now.

    What Holmes was trying to do is possible. The idea of a painless injection to draw blood isn’t at all crazy. I had a flu shot a couple of years ago that I didn’t feel. I came home and told my husband that these new injectors should be illegal. “You should know if you’ve been injected with something!” :-) So that’s possible. As far as a computer program that could analyze a blood sample for certain characteristics–that’s possible too.

    I’m guessing that her investors became impatient. And that people don’t like Holmes. And that possibly some of her star developers either sabotaged the projects in the works or are secretly developing these program for other companies now.

    None of this story the way I have read it makes any sense.

    I don’t think she is crazy, I don’t think she is a psychopath, and I don’t think she is a criminal.

    Interesting take. I thought the HBO documentary did a good job of describing the challenge of doing what she wanted to do and her personal lack of the necessary knowledge to analyze the challenge. I agree with you that labeling her desired product “impossible” is not correct. But I think more than impatience was involved. Had she produced the promised product it would have been a marvel. The problems lay in the financial consequences to Holmes’ personally if she did not fabricate the testing they were performing under the Walgreen’s contract. That is where it began to unravel. Had she not done so she would have gone from an extremely wealthy woman to simply a wealthy woman. And medical decisions were being made from fabricated results.

    • #29
    • September 14, 2020, at 9:55 AM PDT
    • 2 likes
  30. Ontheleftcoast Member

    MarciN (View Comment):

    I suspect there is a lot more to this story than we are being told by the press and prosecutors right now.

    What Holmes was trying to do is possible. The idea of a painless injection to draw blood isn’t at all crazy. I had a flu shot a couple of years ago that I didn’t feel. I came home and told my husband that these new injectors should be illegal. “You should know if you’ve been injected with something!” :-) So that’s possible. As far as a computer program that could analyze a blood sample for certain characteristics–that’s possible too.

    I’m guessing that her investors became impatient. And that people don’t like Holmes. And that possibly some of her star developers either sabotaged the projects in the works or are secretly developing these program for other companies now.

    None of this story the way I have read it makes any sense.

    I don’t think she is crazy, I don’t think she is a psychopath, and I don’t think she is a criminal.

    When railroads were the hot thing, there were a lot of cons run raising money to build railroads. Ditto canals. A lot of startup businesses have overpromised. Some of them have managed to keep the plates spinning until they could actually deliver. Some failed. Some of them were cons from the getgo. 

    As I understand it, there are ways in which finger stick blood samples are not always equivalent in their contents as well as of course in size. That said, I am pretty certain that sooner or later the basic idea of running multiple blood tests off a tiny sample will become reality. But it isn’t here yet.

    • #30
    • September 14, 2020, at 10:05 AM PDT
    • 4 likes