Page 5 of 15 FirstFirst ... 34567 ... LastLast
Results 81 to 100 of 294
  1. #81
    Quote Originally Posted by Tooold View Post
    Everything in her life seemed to be well-planned (including the pregnancy after being charged…).


    I didn't realize she got married after being arrested but before the trial. She is married to the "heir of Evans hotel chains". No idea how big that is. His family says he was "brainwashed" by her, in deciding to go through with the wedding despite her likely prison sentence. He is 8 years her junior.

  2. #82
    Quote Originally Posted by budwom View Post
    my take as well. The woman was very strong and very confident and in control of everything. Good thing Harvey Weinstein is behind bars, because Holmes could've blamed him for abuse (vis a vis the grasping at straws defense).
    What are the chances that when her sentencing hearing approaches, her lawyers will dust off the old Debra Lafave "too pretty for prison" defense?

  3. #83
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Vermont
    Quote Originally Posted by Stray Gator View Post
    What are the chances that when her sentencing hearing approaches, her lawyers will dust off the old Debra Lafave "too pretty for prison" defense?
    I had to look her up! I'm the defense will have something passionate to say, but I trust the judge will whomp her with a good long stint in jail.

  4. #84
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Outside Philly
    Picked up (had Amazon deliver a used copy) of Bad Blood after so many positive reviews on this thread. Just started last night but looking for to a deeper dive.

  5. #85
    Just read it myself. I had to keep putting it down because I was getting too incredulous about the stuff they were pulling.

  6. #86
    Quote Originally Posted by Stray Gator View Post
    What are the chances that when her sentencing hearing approaches, her lawyers will dust off the old Debra Lafave "too pretty for prison" defense?
    "Honest... I ran out of gas. I... I had a flat tire. I didn't have enough money for cab fare. My tux didn't come back from the cleaners. An old friend came in from out of town. Someone stole my car. There was an earthquake. A terrible flood. Locusts! IT WASN'T MY FAULT, I SWEAR TO GOD!"

  7. #87
    Join Date
    Mar 2017
    Location
    Sea Island, GA
    Quote Originally Posted by acdevil View Post
    Just read it myself. I had to keep putting it down because I was getting too incredulous about the stuff they were pulling.
    It was unbelievable. Which is why I think Holmes deserves a long prison sentence. And I think she should have been convicted of more of the charges (like defrauding patients).

    Also, I am so impressed with the courage and moral compass of Tyler Shultz.

  8. #88
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Boston area, OK, Newton, right by Heartbreak Hill
    Quote Originally Posted by Stray Gator View Post
    What are the chances that when her sentencing hearing approaches, her lawyers will dust off the old Debra Lafave "too pretty for prison" defense?
    Aw, c'mon, Lafave avoided prison in Florida at about the same time that Jeffry Epstein was avoiding a long prison sentence too.

  9. #89
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Outside Philly
    I'm about a third of the way through the book so far. Interesting read. I hope the author ends up exploring how exactly she was able to mesmerize so many smart, successful people, including board members, CEOs and the like. I'm not sure I get that side of things right now. Singular personalities can impose their will but amazing how many people waved off standard corporate governance or business due diligence and technology validation to let her proceed. One thing I didn't quite realize was just how useless the tech was --- there was not a time, at least so far, that anything about the core product worked and, in fact, it caused harm through error messages.

    I know this isn't news to most of you but I'd done some idle speculating earlier in the thread about that fine line between vision setting and 'hockey stick' revenue projections that accompanies early stage investing and outright fraud. I still think it's core to what happened.

    I can say one thing with certainty knowing my personality, I wouldn't have stayed and fought the ethical fight, I would have been one of those dozens who knew something wasn't right and just quit. The turnover really seems to be a huge enabling factor, too.

  10. #90
    Join Date
    Mar 2017
    Location
    Sea Island, GA
    Quote Originally Posted by bundabergdevil View Post
    Singular personalities can impose their will but amazing how many people waved off standard corporate governance or business due diligence and technology validation to let her proceed. One thing I didn't quite realize was just how useless the tech was --- there was not a time, at least so far, that anything about the core product worked and, in fact, it caused harm through error messages.
    There was a show on the other night that covered a lot of the Elizabeth Holmes story, with updates from the recent trial. Some key points:

    1) there never was a technology. It isn’t as if someone at Stanford was doing research on blood chemistry and was close to a breakthrough, so then Holmes started a company to help develop that technology. It simply did not exist. They interviewed one of Holmes’ professors who said she told Elizabeth that no such technology existed, and Holmes said “fake it until you make it.” On this show, they talked about the fact that Theranos was furiously trying to create the technology by copying existing blood chemistry analyzers.

    2) They showed text messages from Sunny coaching Holmes to speak in a lower voice…

    3) The interviews that Holmes gave during the Theranos “hay day” were astounding, to say the least. Holmes gave so many interviews…some at conferences, some on Tv shows, many by people who should have known better. She was often asked how they could get so many tests from such a small sample, and she simply could not answer the question. Her answers made no sense…something similar to ”you take a sample, send a signal through it, and you get the result”. Her voice got lower and lower with each interview. When interviewers pressed for a real answer, she gave the same gobbledygook, or said something like “I am trying to change the world”.

    4) When insiders (specifically Erika and Tyler) brought concerns directly to Elizabeth, they suffered dearly. She was vicious to them. David Boies served them with very aggressive and threatening legal documents. They were followed by private investigators, and lived in fear.

    The whole thing is just a terrible example of the damage a narcissist person can do. And how easily supposedly smart people can be duped.

  11. #91
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Vermont
    Quote Originally Posted by Tooold View Post
    There was a show on the other night that covered a lot of the Elizabeth Holmes story, with updates from the recent trial. Some key points:

    1) there never was a technology. It isn’t as if someone at Stanford was doing research on blood chemistry and was close to a breakthrough, so then Holmes started a company to help develop that technology. It simply did not exist. They interviewed one of Holmes’ professors who said she told Elizabeth that no such technology existed, and Holmes said “fake it until you make it.” On this show, they talked about the fact that Theranos was furiously trying to create the technology by copying existing blood chemistry analyzers.

    2) They showed text messages from Sunny coaching Holmes to speak in a lower voice…

    3) The interviews that Holmes gave during the Theranos “hay day” were astounding, to say the least. Holmes gave so many interviews…some at conferences, some on Tv shows, many by people who should have known better. She was often asked how they could get so many tests from such a small sample, and she simply could not answer the question. Her answers made no sense…something similar to ”you take a sample, send a signal through it, and you get the result”. Her voice got lower and lower with each interview. When interviewers pressed for a real answer, she gave the same gobbledygook, or said something like “I am trying to change the world”.

    4) When insiders (specifically Erika and Tyler) brought concerns directly to Elizabeth, they suffered dearly. She was vicious to them. David Boies served them with very aggressive and threatening legal documents. They were followed by private investigators, and lived in fear.

    The whole thing is just a terrible example of the damage a narcissist person can do. And how easily supposedly smart people can be duped.

    Yes, the book spells most of this stuff out. There were too many people opining that "everyone in Silicon Valley does this" on her behalf, evidently people who were too lazy to understand what she was up to. She never had anything in the way of technology. And as you say, David Boies does not come out of this looking good. Ardent client defense is one thing, he went well beyond that.

  12. #92
    Join Date
    Mar 2017
    Location
    Sea Island, GA
    Quote Originally Posted by budwom View Post
    Yes, the book spells most of this stuff out. There were too many people opining that "everyone in Silicon Valley does this" on her behalf, evidently people who were too lazy to understand what she was up to. She never had anything in the way of technology. And as you say, David Boies does not come out of this looking good. Ardent client defense is one thing, he went well beyond that.
    You are right…the book covers most of this. What was interesting to me on this show was to see and hear the Stanford professor speak about the situation—in particular, how strongly she felt about Elizabeth being a fraud, and how credible the professor was. Also, it was so interesting to actually see clips of the Holmes interviews with Bill Clinton and others, including TV journalists and moderators at conferences, and to see how totally unable she was to answer even the simplest of questions about the Theranos technology.

  13. #93
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Vermont
    Quote Originally Posted by Tooold View Post
    You are right…the book covers most of this. What was interesting to me on this show was to see and hear the Stanford professor speak about the situation—in particular, how strongly she felt about Elizabeth being a fraud, and how credible the professor was. Also, it was so interesting to actually see clips of the Holmes interviews with Bill Clinton and others, including TV journalists and moderators at conferences, and to see how totally unable she was to answer even the simplest of questions about the Theranos technology.
    Yep..what struck me about how she could pull this off seemed to be largely based on the endorsement of Stanford prof Channing Robertson....when he got behind her, the money and big names in Silicon Valley lined up behind her...without his credibility, I'm not sure how she could have pulled this off.

  14. #94
    Quote Originally Posted by budwom View Post
    Yep..what struck me about how she could pull this off seemed to be largely based on the endorsement of Stanford prof Channing Robertson...when he got behind her, the money and big names in Silicon Valley lined up behind her...without his credibility, I'm not sure how she could have pulled this off.
    She ended up having an extremely credible board. That was a huge part of the problem along with the fear of missing out from investors. The book states that many of them felt like something was off but didn’t want to miss out on enormous profits if it turned out to be viable.

  15. #95
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    WA State
    Quote Originally Posted by bundabergdevil View Post
    I'm about a third of the way through the book so far. Interesting read. I hope the author ends up exploring how exactly she was able to mesmerize so many smart, successful people, including board members, CEOs and the like. I'm not sure I get that side of things right now. Singular personalities can impose their will but amazing how many people waved off standard corporate governance or business due diligence and technology validation to let her proceed. One thing I didn't quite realize was just how useless the tech was --- there was not a time, at least so far, that anything about the core product worked and, in fact, it caused harm through error messages.

    I know this isn't news to most of you but I'd done some idle speculating earlier in the thread about that fine line between vision setting and 'hockey stick' revenue projections that accompanies early stage investing and outright fraud. I still think it's core to what happened.

    I can say one thing with certainty knowing my personality, I wouldn't have stayed and fought the ethical fight, I would have been one of those dozens who knew something wasn't right and just quit. The turnover really seems to be a huge enabling factor, too.
    You might add The Big Con by David Maurer to your reading list. He delves deeply in the structure of the long con, the psychology of the process, and who falls for them.

  16. #96
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    New Jersey
    Quote Originally Posted by Tooold View Post
    There was a show on the other night that covered a lot of the Elizabeth Holmes story, with updates from the recent trial. Some key points:

    1) there never was a technology. It isn’t as if someone at Stanford was doing research on blood chemistry and was close to a breakthrough, so then Holmes started a company to help develop that technology. It simply did not exist. They interviewed one of Holmes’ professors who said she told Elizabeth that no such technology existed, and Holmes said “fake it until you make it.” On this show, they talked about the fact that Theranos was furiously trying to create the technology by copying existing blood chemistry analyzers.

    2) They showed text messages from Sunny coaching Holmes to speak in a lower voice…

    3) The interviews that Holmes gave during the Theranos “hay day” were astounding, to say the least. Holmes gave so many interviews…some at conferences, some on Tv shows, many by people who should have known better. She was often asked how they could get so many tests from such a small sample, and she simply could not answer the question. Her answers made no sense…something similar to ”you take a sample, send a signal through it, and you get the result”. Her voice got lower and lower with each interview. When interviewers pressed for a real answer, she gave the same gobbledygook, or said something like “I am trying to change the world”.

    4) When insiders (specifically Erika and Tyler) brought concerns directly to Elizabeth, they suffered dearly. She was vicious to them. David Boies served them with very aggressive and threatening legal documents. They were followed by private investigators, and lived in fear.

    The whole thing is just a terrible example of the damage a narcissist person can do. And how easily supposedly smart people can be duped.
    I'm reading the book now. Do you know what show? I'd like to check it out.
    Rich
    "Failure is Not a Destination"
    Coach K on the Dan Patrick Show, December 22, 2016

  17. #97
    Join Date
    Mar 2017
    Location
    Sea Island, GA
    Quote Originally Posted by Rich View Post
    I'm reading the book now. Do you know what show? I'd like to check it out.
    It might have been 20/20’s. “The Drop-out”. That has a few parts. I just happened upon it by chance part way through. But it likely was a 20/20, 48 Hours, or similar….I will try to investigate….

  18. #98
    Join Date
    Mar 2017
    Location
    Sea Island, GA
    Quote Originally Posted by Tooold View Post
    It might have been 20/20’s. “The Drop-out”. That has a few parts. I just happened upon it by chance part way through. But it likely was a 20/20, 48 Hours, or similar….I will try to investigate….
    I do think it was the 20/20 episode referenced above (which I believe has 3 parts), and is shown on ABC (and some episodes are also on OWN, WE, TLC). Another documentary is “The Inventor, Out for Blood in Silicon Valley” which I think is HBO.

  19. #99
    Quote Originally Posted by kshepinthehouse View Post
    She ended up having an extremely credible board.
    In terms of medical device or blood testing knowledge, not really. As I recall her board was instead heavily made up of well-known military and government figures.

  20. #100
    Quote Originally Posted by cspan37421 View Post
    In terms of medical device or blood testing knowledge, not really. As I recall her board was instead heavily made up of well-known military and government figures.
    She had an extremely impressive board of who’s who but you’re correct, medically maybe not so much. However, when you have a former Secretary of State on your board it still gives investors more peace of mind.

Similar Threads

  1. JJ Redick interview on Pete Holmes' podcast
    By HaveFunExpectToWin in forum Elizabeth King Forum
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 06-12-2017, 03:43 PM
  2. Remember Ron Holmes?
    By jimsumner in forum Elizabeth King Forum
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 06-02-2013, 03:04 PM
  3. Clemens Not Guilty
    By Jim3k in forum Off Topic
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 06-19-2012, 08:17 AM
  4. Sherlock Holmes: A game of shadows
    By JNort in forum Off Topic
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 12-22-2011, 03:55 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •