Were you in the courtroom for the trials? Did you read all the briefs and transcripts and review all the evidence? They were able to prove 4 counts against her and 12 against him. What is provable and which counts relate to what sentences isn't necessarily intuitive. Why jump to the assumption of sexism without all the relevant info? Even if you had the info, do you have the legal qualifications to evaluate it?

I for one choose to trust my peers who spent weeks hearing all of this and poring over the details. Could it be biased? Sure, that's possible, juries aren't perfect. I just don't understand the rush to assume a sexist bias based solely on the aggregate sentence lengths.

Fortunately, all the court proceedings, arguments, and reasoning are entirely public, so an academic could examine all of this very closely and report on how sexism may or may not have played a role in the disparate sentencing.

Any such analysis would have to start with the fact that he was convicted on 12 counts, and she was convicted on 4.

He was convicted on 12 counts. She was convicted on 4 counts.

My reading of the situation is that Elisabeth Holmes was his victim. Not saying she's innocent, but I think she was in a tougher situation than Sunny Balwani.

Seems strange that she got away with more, I can't qwhite put my finger on it