[Technology] Elizabeth Holmes (Theranos)found guilty

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

And a good job too. Worth a delve into this rabbit hole if you are interested in how psychopaths can believe their own lies.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-59734254

 

[Pevenseagull]

Did the jury deliver the verdict in a comedy deep voice?

 

[Pevenseagull]

I would imagine that Sky will repeat 'The Inventor: Out For Blood In Silicon Valley' some time soon. Fascinating stuff.


Edit: just checked, they start running it again tomorrow

 

[warmleyseagull]

There is a series of podcasts by a journo from Wall Street Journal who wised up to Theranos several years ago and has been a constant thorn in Holmes's side; they are long and detailed but listening to just three of them was damning enough. A not guilty verdict would have been outrageous.

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

There is a series of podcasts by a journo from Wall Street Journal who wised up to Theranos several years ago and has been a constant thorn in Holmes's side; they are long and detailed but listening to just three of them was damning enough. A not guilty verdict would have been outrageous.

Unfortunately the lawyers have all been bleating 'eees complicated'. They felt they needed to sift thousands of documents before demanding their massive fee. Sorry, I mean before presenting a nuanced narrative to the gormless jury. Sorry again, I meant ensuring that an unequivocal legal position could be created and defended unambiguously so the jury could reach the correct decision.

 

[knocky1]

Feel very sad for poor Rupert Murdoch losing $125million.

 

[Solid at the back]

There is a series of podcasts by a journo from Wall Street Journal who wised up to Theranos several years ago and has been a constant thorn in Holmes's side; they are long and detailed but listening to just three of them was damning enough. A not guilty verdict would have been outrageous.

What's the name of this podcast please?

 

[Tom Hark Preston Park]

These are a good book

 

[Pevenseagull]

Feel very sad for poor Rupert Murdoch losing $125million.

Put Henry Kissinger down for $6 mill as well

 

[Weststander]

I’ve followed this case.

She was a charlatan, a criminal fraudster, done simply to illegally enrich herself.

I’m relieved that a jury, in their erratic legal system (O J Simpson) saw through the lies and her ‘charismatic’, high powered legal team.

Don’t be fooled by the peroxide looker, she knew exactly what she was doing.

 

[Weststander]

Unfortunately the lawyers have all been bleating 'eees complicated'. They felt they needed to sift thousands of documents before demanding their massive fee. Sorry, I mean before presenting a nuanced narrative to the gormless jury. Sorry again, I meant ensuring that an unequivocal legal position could be created and defended unambiguously so the jury could reach the correct decision.

With increasingly complex frauds, countless smoke and mirrors and then having to relate that to very complex legislation/case law over very long trials, that would test any juror. The longest cases in the UK have run to almost 2 years!

It’s often proposed in this country that complex frauds should be judged by a small panel of expert judges, not a jury.

Criminals and their legal teams can be the current beneficiaries of the above.

 

[warmleyseagull]

What's the name of this podcast please?

Bad Blood: the final chapter