Posted on 02/17/2021 6:01:08 PM PST by nickcarraway
Elizabeth Holmes’ attorneys are worried that evidence of the disgraced Theranos founder’s luxe lifestyle could inflame “class prejudice” against her at her upcoming fraud trial.
The feds want to detail for a jury how Holmes rubbed elbows with celebrities, drove a high-end SUV, rented a pricey home and took advantage of other perks as the CEO of the failed blood-testing startup.
But Holmes’ legal team says the “highly misleading” evidence could unfairly tilt jurors against her simply because she earned a big paycheck like other Silicon Valley executives.
(Excerpt) Read more at nypost.com ...
She’s a huckster and a sociopath.
Absolutely crazy.
Lots of lawyers will end up in hell.
What will really be fun is when they try their rationalizations against God, thinking that will fly.
And Mattis was her boy.
“She’s a huckster and a sociopath.”
You have summed her up well from what I’ve read.
She fooled George Schultz as well.
I don’t have a dog in this fight — from a purely legal point of view I side with her attorneys. Her wealth and lifestyle have nothing to do with whether she did or did not do the deed.
“Motive” is crap and not a necessary element of the crime. If you shoot someone and it can be proven you did so, WHY is only peripherally important. Yes, it buttresses a weak circumstantial case but it just means the prosecution can’t make their case factually.
I would say the same even if the accused was a total liberal jerk like bidet or the whore.
Except she was living that lifestyle with other people's money, knowing full well that she was promoting a fraudulent venture.
The celebrity angle was part of her strategy; of course her defense wants this thrown out!
An element of fraud is lying “to gain an advantage over others”. At least, the dictionary definition, if not the legal definition.
The fact of her living an extravagant lifestyle is evidence of that advantage. It would have been different if she had non-functioning machines, and knew it, but she plowed every last cent she could find back into the business in an attempt to try to fix them and make them work. But she didn’t.
She never had a product, She faked the “instant” testing to live investors, She never had any wealth she didn’t gain from fraud, and then spent the ill-gained wealth on a lavish lifestyle. I think how she spent the money she defrauded from investors is important factor but hardly critical to proving the case.
I see soulless eyes.
I’ll take what are two borderline autistic sociopaths?...
>>Except she was living that lifestyle with other people’s money, knowing full well that she was promoting a fraudulent venture.<<
Then the prosecution needs to PROVE that it was fraudulent which resulted in that lifestyle. NOT the other way around.
Punishment for that lifestyle should be in sentencing, NOT prosecution.
Else ANYONE who lives a high lifestyle who is accused of anything will find the same tactic used against him/her.
That's exactly what they're going to do. I've followed this story pretty closely and it won't be hard. They understand that living large at the expense of duped investors is not going to play well in front of a jury.
I disagree. I have seen sociopathic fraud up close. The lux lifestyle is an intrinsic part of narcissism and the carrying out of the crimes. Dress for success.
Do you feel the same way about Bernie Madoff? Ken Lay?
I’ve watched her documentary a couple times. If she does not go to prison for 20-plus years there is no justice. A shallow, terrible, selfish, soulless wench.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.