Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Elizabeth Holmes found guilty

axios.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

641–650 of 1001 posts

Re: Elizabeth Holmes found guilty

#641

Post by globular-toast »

rTX5CMRXIfFG wrote: post #425

These days, whenever someone is being presented as an absolute villain (as in the case of Holmes), comments sections tend to have not a few posts about how the things they’ve done, from a different vantage point, are understandable, or morally ambiguous and not objectively evil, or even amoral. I’m completely opposed to what she has done, but could there be any reason why we all seem to be unanimous that she is objec…

I think it's because of the weird eyes and deep voice. Honestly. There is something deeply unsettling about her. If she didn't do the wide eye and deep voice thing she'd be very attractive and people would think differently. They'd probably defend her saying she was manipulated and trusted the wrong people etc.

Re: Elizabeth Holmes found guilty

#642

Post by odiroot »

joering2 wrote: post #305
metadat wrote: post #250

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hopefully she'll get more, SV could use a good example. Otherwise it signals that wantrepeneurs can keep doing it with minimal repercussions.

To me the justice system already failed. It supposed to protect small people, society, vulnerable entities. There are stories how Holmes test were indirect result of someone death because they rely on those. Meanwhile the only real sticking crimes are the one she commit against Betsy Davos (dirty corrupted rabbit hole warning if you Google her name). Obviously Bets placed few phonecalls. It it wasn't some VIP, she wo…

I believe you're missing forest for the trees. Some other commenters in this thread actually gave better explanation but think practically about this.

The prosecutors are not stupid. They have to come up with charges that actually stick, otherwise they risk losing this case in a spectacular fashion. If they went with an angle "X is morally bankrupt and her actions caused some deaths", it would make so much harder to prove and get the jury to agree to it.

Re: Elizabeth Holmes found guilty

#643

Post by avgcorrection »

batmansmk wrote: post #631
causality0 wrote: post #587

What's the takeaway from this other than "killing people by giving phony medical test results is just fine, but don't you dare anger the wealthy"?

As an american resident, I feel less safe being healed in USA after yesterday's judgement. Healthcare should not be just business. Food additives, sugar and the obesity crisis, a list of 1,300 chemicals used in cosmetics, the Vioxx scandal, the opioids crisis and more generally the drug situation, the cost of healthcare, tanking life expectancy... The list is long on why "healthcare is just business" is not working.

I bet ill-health and disease really helps to increase the GDP… Perversely.

Re: Elizabeth Holmes found guilty

#644

Post by ajuc »

kashif wrote: post #630
junon wrote: post #591

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That proving some things in court is easier than other things and by reducing down nuanced legal systems to "rich bad" doesn't help the situation any.

Despite this being true, it is important that people are prosecuted for the "all" the wrongs they did and not just the "easy" ones. It isn't much of a justice system if you can get away with "hard to prosecute" crimes.

Especially when things are hard to prosecute exactly because rich people don't care about them.

Re: Elizabeth Holmes found guilty

#646

Post by babarock »

cies wrote: post #629
differentView wrote: post #599

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe "pragmatic prosecutors made pragmatic decisions instead of satisfying random internet commenters looking for perfect justice."

Strawman. He's not advocating perfect justice. He raises awareness to something that I also found gut wrenching when reading the article: investors (super rich) mattered, commoners did not. Calling that "pragmatic prosecutors made pragmatic decisions"... Well. You do you.

You're making the assumption that Holmes wronged "commoners" with malicious intent. As far as anyone can tell, this is just an allegation. So either:

1. you have incredible insight into the inner workings of the company. 2. you're joining an online pitchforking mob.

As much as I rejoice seeing a Silicon Valley poster child be exposed as a phony and a fraud, I would be very careful before jumping to conclusions and asserting with high confidence that the court verdict is flawed.

Re: Elizabeth Holmes found guilty

#647

Post by schoen »

Someone wrote: post #574
jonwachob91 wrote: post #40

It blows my mind that she was found guilty for defrauding investors, but not guilty for defrauding patients about their test results. Investors know that every dollar they put into a company could disappear, it's why startups get capital from investors and not bank loans. But a patient does not expect for their blood test results to be completely wrong. Her tests weren't giving false-negatives or false-positives, the…

FTA: “This case was specifically about what Holmes told Theranos investors, although her lies also impacted partners and patients.“ If that’s true, it isn’t surprising she wasn’t found guilty for defrauding patients, and more cases (¿maybe one focusing on partners and one focusing on patients?) could follow. I don’t know whether something like that is in the pipeline. Edit: reading https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eliza…

> “In February 2020, Holmes's defense requested a federal court to drop all charges against her and her co-defendant Balwani. A federal judge examined the charges and ruled that some charges should be dropped: since the Theranos blood tests were paid for by medical insurance companies, the patients were not deprived of any money or property. Prosecutors would hence not be allowed to argue that doctors and patients were fraud victims. However, the judge kept the 11 charges of wire fraud”

I don't know anything about that ruling except what you've quoted from Wikipedia, but didn't many of the patients have to make coinsurance payments for these tests? I just paid a medical bill today with a coinsurance component, and so both I and my insurance carrier have now paid for those medical services.

I also wonder about whether getting people to have a fraudulent medical test (which might cause some amount of pain or anxiety, especially for people who are afraid of needles) could have been a cognizable harm even if they didn't have to pay money to undergo it. But I realize that the law will often distinguish between suffering and losses of tangible property for many purposes.

Re: Elizabeth Holmes found guilty

#648

Post by PavleMiha »

nikanj wrote: post #597
hn_throwaway_99 wrote: post #496

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Skilling of Enron fame got 24 years and was released after 12. That's because his original 24 year sentence was reduced to 14 after a Supreme Court case vacated part of his convictions. My bet, based on some calculators I've seen, is that Holmes serves (actually in jail) 14-18 years.

My bet, based on her net worth, is that she'll die of old age before the last round of appeals ends - and serve zero days before that.

Would you actually be willing to bet money on this 1 to 1? I. e. that Holmes serves no days in prison.

Re: Elizabeth Holmes found guilty

#649

Post by detaro »

schoen wrote: post #647
Someone wrote: post #574

Earlier quoted context omitted.

FTA: “This case was specifically about what Holmes told Theranos investors, although her lies also impacted partners and patients.“ If that’s true, it isn’t surprising she wasn’t found guilty for defrauding patients, and more cases (¿maybe one focusing on partners and one focusing on patients?) could follow. I don’t know whether something like that is in the pipeline. Edit: reading https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eliza…

> “In February 2020, Holmes's defense requested a federal court to drop all charges against her and her co-defendant Balwani. A federal judge examined the charges and ruled that some charges should be dropped: since the Theranos blood tests were paid for by medical insurance companies, the patients were not deprived of any money or property. Prosecutors would hence not be allowed to argue that doctors and patients we…

> I also wonder about whether getting people to have a fraudulent medical test (which might cause some amount of pain or anxiety, especially for people who are afraid of needles) could have been a cognizable harm

If I remember right one of the witnesses was a woman who got a false-positive HIV test result, so they probably went for that angle.

Re: Elizabeth Holmes found guilty

#650

Post by bb88 »

achow wrote: post #601
inglor_cz wrote: post #593

Earlier quoted context omitted.

IIRC the notorious gangster Al Capone was done on tax evasion, not on his main murder-heavy business.

I think Capone did not have any witnesses for his murder-heavy business. Here there were plenty.

It seems a legal issue was something that RICO fixed in 1970.

It was hard to pin down the mob boss to particular murder. They could get the lower level hitmen, sure, but tying it to the main boss was difficult. Recordings were not really a thing back then. Those that did talk were killed.

Rudy Giuliani (yes that Rudy Giuliani) had the first successful prosecution under RICO in the 1980's.

Post reply on HN