Hacker News Reader

Comment by RegnisGnaw | Hacker News Reader

The problem is that none of this will work against her defense, that she was not of sane state of mind at the time.

I thought her defense was "we tried real hard and it just didn't work, is that a crime?" I guess "also, I'm nuts" adds some spice to the mix.

That defense is not likely to work.

The reason she's using it is because the evidence is so overwhelming, there are no other cards to play.

Her actual defense is going to be: "That bad man made me do it"

Cherchez l'homme!

Exactly, "I did do it. But that bad man made me do it."

Western society is way too tolerant of certain kinds of mental illness, such as sociopathy/psychopathy, and intolerant of others (e.g. anxiety/depression).

Very succinct statement of the issue.

Not only is Western society too tolerant of sociopathy, corporate structures tend to actively filter to top ranks those with such behaviors (just spend 5min reading Glassdoor or any employment-related NH topic...).

I have a pet theory on this that is entirely based on my own biased views: societies which are communal, whether around a family, village, tribe, etc..., tend to keep sociopathic tendencies in check. Either the sociopathic individual is exiled from the group, or at least identified and prevented from harming the collective. If the larger structure is still made up of smaller (at most 100s of individuals) communities, exiles risk becoming pariahs and without any societal support, it becomes next to impossible to strive (or even survive).

In highly individualistic societies, a lot of the most personal checks and balances are removed. You no longer have a tight-knit family that imposes some moral framework and behavior on it's members (good or bad).

Having said that, I'm not sure whether there are any truly communal societies left in the modern world. I suppose some isolated, rural communities could qualify, but pretty much all modern countries are now individualistic. Family values are slightly more pronounced in the East/far-East, but not to a degree that matters. Being successful still often trumps being a decent human being.

Indeed! The ability to make a mess then move on to a new crowd to abuse/scam/etc. without your reputation fully following you, is hugely enabling for sociopaths.

I've followed the case fairly closely. I'm not aware that this is part of her defense. Where did you get this from?

https://www.npr.org/2021/08/28/1031961327/elizabeth-holmes-t...

Basically: yes I did do this, but I was abused by Balwani and as a result I was in an impaired state of mind.

Those are not exactly the same thing. And it would undercut her current defense which is "I was just doing my best and we failed and business failure isn't a crime"

She doesn't have a current defense in the court. The defense in court is all that matters in the trial, not media. The prosecution is presenting the evidence right now, she will have her turn afterwards.

"She doesn't have a current defense in the court.The defense in court is all that matters in the trial, not media"

Huh? I don't even know what this means. According to you her defense is "that she was not of sane state of mind at the time". Maybe you can post another npr link that explains what you mean by no current defense in court.

The "Balwani abused me and I had diminished mental capacity" is her planned defense in court as stated in the NRP article.

At the trial right now (in court), her lawyers hasn't presented that defense yet. Right now the trial is in the first step, the prosecution/state presenting their case. Once the prosecution/state rests their case, the defense begin present their case (at this point they will present their "Balwami abused me argument".

That's traditionally a very difficult defense; it's often tried as a Hail Mary, but rarely succeeds.

Any lawyers here - is the general consensus that she is going to jail for a long time?

Not a lawyer or legal expert. But American juries are generally unpredictable and overwhelming evidence doesn't always decide cases (look at the O.J Simpson trial or more recently Bill Cosby or the first Epstein case). I think the general consensus is that there's a lot of damning evidence against her and there's a good chance she'll be found guilty. But a lot depends on how effective her defense is in swaying the jury and a lot of technicalities. Plus there's the baby/new mother factor that might influence her sentencing if not the jury verdict

There wasn't overwhelming evidence in the Cosby case, which is precisely why his conviction was overturned. He was convicted based on testimony he was forced to give against himself in a civil trial where he was not allowed to exercise his fifth amendment right against self-incrimination. The previous DA specifically said there wasn't enough evidence to convict Cosby, which is both why he never pursued charges and why Cosby was forced to testify against himself (without the threat of criminal indictment, he didn't have the right against self-incrimination on the civil suit).

You are technically correct but I don't see what the contradiction is. You could say that his testimony was 'overwhelming evidence' (he practically admitted to doing what he was accused of). Yes, improperly obtained and inadmissible, hence the 'technicalities' part. My point is that even an open confession existing somewhere is not a guarantee of conviction or a long prison sentence.

If the exclusion of a single piece of evidence whose use in a trial was unconstitutional meant there wasn't enough evidence to convict, I would say there wasn't 'overwhelming evidence'.

Wait, that's not her defense from what I've seen. Her defense was that she basically tried her best, was doing actual R&D, there were tech problems, she made some blunders, but failure is not criminal.

Tech problems is a bit of an understatement.

she's going to say Balwani was abusing her emotionally and sexually, which impaired her sense of mind.

https://www.npr.org/2021/08/28/1031961327/elizabeth-holmes-t...

What are they basing that on? Her turtleneck was too tight?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com