Theranos founder Elizabeth Holmes turns herself in for 11-year prison term | Hacker News Reader

Theranos founder Elizabeth Holmes turns herself in for 11-year prison term

theguardian.com

48 pointssizzle41 comments

> “I am devastated by my failings,” she said. “Every day for the past years I have felt deep pain for what people went through because I failed them. I regret my failings with every cell of my body.”

I would award her with additional jail time just for uttering such bullshit.

I can't help but feel that the whole board should also be facing charges. People who should have known better got stars in their eyes such that Holmes shouldn't be the only one facing punishment.

This is not sarcasm. I do hope she spends the time studying what she should have studied before (hematology?, medical science, etc).

I hope not. We already have enough people who are "experts" because they have read books and articles. Dont need another one who then goes on to create yet another startup because now they are the experts.

No, I want her to realize that what she was trying is probably impossible.

> She…has been ordered to pay $452m in restitution to victims of the fraud.

With what? Does she still have that kind of money? And if she doesn’t, couldn’t she declare bankruptcy to get out of her obligation?

I don’t understand the point of having an unrealistic number like that. It would make more sense for Theranos to pay the restitution (since the entity raised the $$ and likely has the means).

Restitution for fraud isn't dischargable in bankruptcy. The most she can hope for in bankruptcy is to manage the debt in a chapter 11

The point is to stop her turning up in 11 years with 452m of magic treasure she found in a lake.

It's interesting. All the damage is already done. No harm done is repaired and no direct risk exists if she were free. But it has to be done so that the realistic threat exists for the next person.

Except she's probably a sociopath who acted without regard to consequence, and the next person with enough leverage who is also sociopath will likewise not be deterred, even by an example of a sociopath who acted without regard to consequence and went to prison.

Justice itself is worth a lot to us.

It's an important value. We want justice in our lives and in our society. People will sometimes sue others when a potential remedy doesn't cover the costs. And society will permit certain individuals an excursion outside social norms when they have been wronged to restore justice. For example, we consider punching bullies and thieves back acceptable, and we have many movies and video games where a hero is morally permitted violence and committing serious crimes to bring justice back to society. It's hard to say where this need for justice as a core value comes from in our culture, but it is definitely there.

And in this case, society has been wronged. Rendering justice allows it to stay true to its values. Why these values are the way they are is interesting, indeed. But putting Holmes in prison aligns with them.

Yeah, it was more a remark about our values as you say, than on the action taken here.

That’s like saying “they’re already murdered, there’s no harm repaired by this so just let her go”

She would just murder again…

I mean, with murderers that's a real risk. But old Lizzie Holmes can't run a company any more (not allowed to).

What is stopping her? And isn't that a punishment as well so if we had none, she could? If she found enough people to invest...

The SEC, if I recall. But apparently that is a 10 y punishment, so she could be out and founding again https://www.sec.gov/news/press-release/2018-41

As someone who hasn’t followed the details of the case, was her long prison sentence mainly because she defrauded investors rather than knowingly falsifying medical tests?

She had multiple charges but was only found guilty of defrauding investors. She was actually acquitted for defrauding patients.

https://www.mercurynews.com/2022/01/03/elizabeth-holmes-tria...

Not that this is the right forum to re-try her case, but I'm actually shocked she got 11 years and I might even argue that is far more than she deserves if she was acquitted on the patient side. The problem appears that these statutes are based on dollar amounts of the fraud -- $140 million according to https://www.justice.gov/usao-ndca/pr/elizabeth-holmes-senten.... Yes that's a lot of money but the investors themselves, how many of them were really damaged in any meaningful way? A few billionaires -- DeVos, Murdoch, Walton -- lost many millions, but what is that, 2 or 3% of their net worth? I'm sure there are some less-wealthy people on the investor list as well but I'm guessing nobody got their life savings wiped out. Defrauding the public, as opposed to some very wealthy investors, seems like a lot more serious crime.

> how many of them were really damaged in any meaningful way?

If I had to put a number on it, I'd say the damage was ~$140m worth.

She was convicted on charges related to defrauding investors and acquitted on charges related to defrauding patients. A juror told the WSJ “the jury concluded that prosecutors didn’t present enough evidence to show that Ms. Holmes knowingly pitched a faulty product to induce patients to pay for tests.“[1] Take that for what you will. I think it was easier to prove the defrauding the investors part. We know Holmes gave investors certain documents. We know those documents were full of lies. The juror described that as a smoking gun, and I don’t think there was any evidence so clear-cut on the patient side.

[1] https://archive.ph/zyLQ6

I never empathized with her up until watching this video. Shaky-cam, typical parking lot, normal clothes. That could be me!

My guess is she was nervous and a bit excited, with some background resignation. Almost first-day-of-school vibes. Minimum-security must be a lot like the outside world, with less freedom. Another world to explore and take root in. Life goes on.

It couldn't be you -- or at least shouldn't be -- unless you defrauded investors and patients like she did.

I have zero empathy for her. Defrauding actual medical patients is pretty bad.

>> Brittany Gould testified that in 2014 she took a Theranos blood test at a Walgreens store in Arizona to measure a pregnancy hormone after learning that was expecting a baby, CNBC reports. After reviewing the results, Gould shared during the trial, "[My nurse practitioner] told me your numbers are falling, unfortunately, and that I was miscarrying." Because of those results, she switched her medication to something potentially harmful to the fetus. However, Gould took two more tests administered by Quest Diagnostics that confirmed she was still pregnant. She eventually delivered a healthy baby.[1]

[1] https://www.popsugar.com/entertainment/what-happened-to-eliz...

Besides, Martha Stewart, a past inmate, rebuilt her empire after insider trading, and was recently on Sports Illustrated! So I'm sure Holmes will bounce back.

Nah. People love Martha, and her crime is unrelated to her work and fame

But Martha wasn't convicted in the court of public opinion.

Everyone is human, with very human reactions. Even celebrities.

I'm not excusing choices. Just saying we all sh*t on a toilet.

I lost all sympathy when she had two children while awaiting a trial that would almost certainly end in a lengthy prison sentence. Of course she used that fact to reduce her sentence. Considering that she's also pretty old (39 now), she likely went to fertility treatment to get pregnant. I don't understand how a woman could willfully have children knowing she won't be around to raise them and try to use them for leverage. Really sociopathic behavior

Seems terrible, but maybe that ole biological clock was kicking in and she figured she'd not get a chance in prison? Though she'd seem type to try and to something sociopathic too.

It sounds pretty natural, actually. Wanting to have children is probably one of the most overwhelming natural directives we face. It was her last shot at it because she might well be menopausal when she comes out, depending on how much she actually serves.

It's Federal prison, they don't offer parole. She will serve at least 85% of her sentence.

Wow didn’t know this thanks for sharing

It was a choice between having kids or not having them at all. At her age, delaying was not an option. People have kids in all kinds of terrible situations and hers is not that bad. She has supportive families on both her and her husband sides so I am sure kids will be fine. She can read books to them on the phone, there are visits, etc.

Not having kids was an option. People decide not to have kids. She shouldn't have had them. Biology is not a justification.

I won't say you're wrong.

But be very careful about dictating the allowable requirements for having progeny.

Historically speaking, it's a tricky area.

Also, the question of who should have kids and under what circumstances has been a matter of debate for centuries. There are so many strong, different opinions that whatever one says will probably insult someone else. I do not believe there can be consensus on this topic.

I didn't say it was a requirement. I said it's morally bereft.

Few C level types do the job of raising their children because that would interfere with work. Nannies, au pair, etc.

Yeah, that's the image of herself she's been trying to paint recently, with the help of some media outlets[1].

In the same article, she and the author also claim that what she did was influenced by the world putting good women like her down - the sexism argument:

> Ms. Holmes said she believed that making herself the poster girl for women in tech put a huge target on her back.

> Don’t girl boss too close to the sun, or this could happen to you …

I think at a certain level of obvious sociopathy, all this grasping of straws to rehabilitate one's image (and in some cases shed the blame) are useless. I would hope no one genuinely thinks that her wearing pastel colours and using a couple of kids as leverage makes her any less of a criminal who would have been willing to commit medical fraud and kill others out of greed.

[1] https://archive.is/Ajkoz

Reply on news.ycombinator.com