> If your intent is to defraud, you'd want to avoid a domain that's 1) scientifically accountable, and 2) subject to heavy oversight and regulation. She seems smart enough to know that.
I would like to comment jokingly here with the saying "If you wish to [defraud] go into politics." But let's not support people in that cause.
Seriously, in this case it appears to me it was more and more a series of cascading lies that had to be added to cover the original lie. Which either stemmed from hope, misconception or lack of due dilligence.
If she thought actually her idea was going to work, and nobody raised a flag from her peers, faculty, ..., I think after some point the weight of capital invested made the executives follow the "fake it till you make it path".
I think in that case there was a lot of emotion, pride and "our name is on the line" that came into play.
However, in that case I wonder, if it is believable that major investors did not do their homework? Or are they also part of the game. Cass Grandone bailing on such a promising project should have been a red flag for any serious investor. I bet in that case, a lot of major investors knew and chose to follow the path. In that case they are accountable.
If the story reported about Tyler Shultz is right that means that George Shultz, and his peers, knew but turned a blind eye. In that case, I wonder if Holmes ended up as the scapegoat just to keep the boat floating a bit longer (or even recover). In that case her mistake was writing down a lie in an official document and signing it. Alas, I see clues everywhere that the whole board and investing body are complicit in this deception.