Elizabeth Holmes Might Claim Abusive Relationship in Criminal Fraud Defense | Hacker News Reader

Elizabeth Holmes Might Claim Abusive Relationship in Criminal Fraud Defense

wsj.com

26 pointsslygent19 comments

I am not medical professional, or a trained social worker, but I have no doubt that Holmes has a diagnosable personality disorder and was the victim of some sort of abuse and manipulation.

I also believe that she was totally aware that she was enaged in fraud and deception and was faciliated by a swath of powerful people who had various things to gain.

It is unfortunate that many defendants will seek out any means to avoid the consequences of their actions. It is also troubling when they use issues such as abuse and mental health as excuses. It is disrespectful to those who have really suffered.

Her inability to accept any responsibilty is terrible. It very well may be she was abused and manipulated, but should that exhonorate her from the entire criminal enterprise?

>Her inability to accept any responsibilty is terrible

Should she not do everything she can to reduce her eventual sentence? Can you really blame her?

I realize that the American justice system is adversarial. Whether or not you should take responsibility for your misdeeds is a philosophical question that doesn't mesh well with that system. If you are driving drunk and receive a citation for driving under the influence, it is common to try and fight the citation by finding a technicality to invalidate the arrest.

In the American system, you are innocent until proven guilty. You also have options to plead guilty in exchange for reduced sentences, diversion programs or lesser charges.

In the case of Holmes, her defense is cynical and I do blame her for sapping our justice system of resources that could be used elsewhere. I also believe that her cynical attempts to escape responsibility for her actions will lead to a more severe outcome than if she had admitted her wrongdoing early on. Don't do the crime if you can't do the time.

>Don't do the crime if you can't do the time.

In this adversarial system "the time" is rather vague

She is doing such a disservice to other women that actually go through abuse. She is pulling all the stops now with the baby and abuse. Is she going to argue she is insane next?

She started dating an odd guy who was wealthy and way older at the age of 20, which is really young.

While I have no doubt of her culpability in some matters, I also have no doubt that this guy was a major manipulator behind the scenes, it looked like a cultish situation from the start.

I think most everything came from him, she was a partial puppet - the fake voice, the clothing, the presentation - no 20 year old is able to figure all of that out.

When the story started to come out, I found her relationship with that much older creepy guy to be the most interesting part by far.

Legally, it's hard to say, but from a practical perspective, he's a very material part of the situation.

Also I don't doubt the things she's claiming, but again I'm not sure what it really means or implies.

I almost want to inform you this is Wendy’s drive thru.

The patronizing tone here doesn’t help. Mark Zuckerberg was 20 when he started Facebook. Who do you think the puppeteer was in that situation or did Mark manage there, but Elizabeth couldn’t figure it all out?

Sean Parker?

Mark made a simple app when he was 20 that was popular and grew from there.

Holmes was dating a very wealthy man who invested and co-managed the company, while sleeping with her, into a giant fraud.

He was also a super creepy, controlling figure, all the signs of toxicity were there.

It's not patronizing to suggest that 'the adult, experienced businessperson millionaire' in the partnership is the one figuring out how to best bilk investors of their money.

Also FYI the OP's comment: "She is pulling all the stops now with the baby "

Literally insinuating that 'the baby' is a part of a big ploy - that has to be the most patronizing and condescending possible remark of the situation.

Now flip the script and consider Emmanuel Macron.

> Is she going to argue she is insane next?

The whole point of the abuse being raised in the context of the criminal case is to support a “mental disease or defect” defense, the closest available federal analog to the classic insanity defense so, yes, that's essentially the whole point.

I think she's a low-life. Even after all of that past fuss, she's still trying to survive, blaming the system and others than working on herself.

i mean, even normal, decent people will try everything to reduce their sentence let alone sociopaths.

Of course she will. So many women are incapable and seldom take responsibility for their OWN bad decisions; it's always easier to LIE and BLAME others. Standard MO.

Theres ultimately a chain of inputs and pretext for every action we make. Thats how life works. People still need to be held accountable for their actions.

More manipulation ploys by the master manipulator.

She's not quite a master manipulator, just a liar. Those who were duped were fools. The amount of money and contracts signed without due diligence are a function of some serious problems on the other side.

In some ways this is a very sad startup saga. Holmes got herself into a huge scandal over her inability to deliver on her idea. But, it did not have to end this way. She was not the first and she won't be the last to have a startup that fails. There have been tons of companies that have taken investor's money but failed to deliver anything or have pivoted to something else without criminal consequences or even been blackball by venture funds.

While looking back the idea seems like a loser, I can see how you can make a case for a working product at the time.

I wonder if the fact that she had to lie to the point of it being fraud had something to do with the fact that the company was founded by a woman and it was so much harder to get funding.

People point at Holmes as completely lacking morals. There might be something there but most startup founders start their business on the delusion that some how their product is so needed that it will succeed and they are willing to do a lot to make it a reality. The problem was that Holmes crossed the line. I think this case is a warning to founders on what can happen if you don't know when to call it quits and your actions shift over to fraud.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com