> But the thing that often gets lost in the retelling of her story is that Holmes was actually acquitted of all four charges related to defrauding patients. She’s in prison because a jury found that she knowingly misled investors who poured more than $700 million into the startup.

trying to minimize fraud? what a weird article.

▲

malisper 5 hours ago | parent | next [-]

For context for others, Holmes was acquitted of defrauding patients. A juror stated that she was acquitted because Holmes didn't directly interact with the patients. On the other hand, she did directly interact with investors, so the evidence was much clearer.

Separately, Theranos' COO and Holmes' boyfriend at the time was convicted by a separate jury for defrauding patients. Theranos also settled multiple lawsuits for ~$50M and declared bankruptcy soon after.

	▲	Earw0rm 4 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Acquitted on a legal technicality, then, not in the court of accountability and consequences.

▲

phire 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Also, just because the jury didn't think there was enough evidence to convict her of defrauding patients (beyond reasonable doubt), doesn't mean she was innocent.

▲

erulabs 5 hours ago | parent [-]

It actually does. You can judge her, but she is not guilty. The more we as a society decide the justice system is just an arbitrary way of deciding who gets punished and not _the_ way of deciding if a person is or is not a criminal the more we slide towards oblivion.

If a person is found not guilty, they are not guilty. To argue otherwise is to undermine the core institution of western civilization.

▲

EdwardDiego 15 minutes ago | parent | next [-]

Not guilty doesn't mean innocent. It means "guilt could not be proven", it does not mean "innocence was proven".

Seriously, this is why OJ was found liable for the murder of his wife in a civil case, as they're judged on the balance of probabilities.

And it's why people who have served time, then had a retrial ordered and then found not guilty, can be denied compensation, because decisions on compensation are also done on the balance of probabilities.

So yeah, "not guilty" != "innocent".

▲

lazyasciiart 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Important to note that western civilization is fundamentally ok with the knowledge that the statement issued by a jury or judge does not actually define whether a person is morally, factually or colloquially “innocent”. Disputes may be addressed c/o OJ Simpson and the Central Park 5.

▲

robotresearcher 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

The finding is ‘not guilty’, rather than innocent. It does not mean the accused is innocent. It means they could not be proven guilty.

▲

erulabs 5 hours ago | parent [-]

Important to note that in the original conception of western civilization, no one is 'innocent'. This idea that you have some secret special power to sniff out a persons true heart from a distance, which is separate from a jury of a persons peers studying and debating the evidence, is at best misguided and arrogant, and at worst a pernicious threat.

	▲	willy_k 4 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Don’t overcomplicate it. People are discussing their opinions of truth, using relevant terms.

▲

zem an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-]

there is no way to argue that without also believing that the millions of people the state has tossed into prison are all guilty, which is really not something that I can do.

▲

shepherdjerred 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

I mostly agree with the idea, but to accept this as an absolute implies our justice system is infallible

▲

jghn 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Indeed. While she's not on the leaderboard of worst humans ever, she's still up there. Any whitewashing of her reputation is bogus.

▲

potamic 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

What gets lost more is that Balwani was convicted of defrauding patients, so it's not even like Theranos was absolved of those charges. The kicker is that the CEO and co-founder of a company that has been established to willfully defraud patients somehow managed to escape conviction.

▲

add-sub-mul-div 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

This point is also clearly made in the film. Sounds like the article has nothing to say and just wants to leech off the success and attention of the doc.

▲

siliconc0w 6 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

I mean in do you really have a lot of sympathy for the oligarchic tax advantaged zombie family hedge funds that made a bet and lost?

They didn't do their diligence and do kinda deserve to lose their money.

▲

hypersoar 6 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Holmes and Theranos leadership did more than defraud investors. They knowingly ran unreliable tests on actual patients. People were told they were miscarrying when they weren't, or that they had HIV when they didn't. And they drove an employee, Ian Gibbons, to suicide, then threatened his widow with a lawsuit when she talked to reporters about it.

▲

erulabs 5 hours ago | parent [-]

Important to note she was found not guilty of this charge.

▲

hypersoar 5 hours ago | parent [-]

That is not because Theranos did not commit such fraud against patients; Balwani was convicted on those charges. It's just the prosecutors were unable to prove that Holmes was culpable.

▲

erulabs 5 hours ago | parent [-]

You said

> Holmes ... did more than defraud investors.

Which was not proven in a court of law as judged by a jury of her peers.

▲

hypersoar 5 hours ago | parent [-]

You...you literally elided over the exact phrase I included in anticipation of this objection.

▲

erulabs 5 hours ago | parent [-]

You're conflating Holmes, Theranos and Balwani. Holmes was found not guilt of that which you accuse her of. That you also accuse others at the same time who where found guilty doesn't change that fact.

	▲	Jedd 4 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		You're conflating - 'Do we understand that Holmes did these things?' - with 'Were those specific charges brought against her and were they successfully prosecuted?'. Reading John Carreyrou's book, it's pretty clear she was guilty of (lots of bad) things beyond the lone 'defrauding investor' charge that was successfully carried.
	▲	qup 3 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		I've done many things I wasn't found guilty of.

▲

thereitgoes456 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

That’s true but not relevant. I have absolutely no sympathy for the rubes who thought FTX was a good place to put their money, but that doesn’t make the fraud any more OK.

▲

dylan604 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

The people that invested their money did not make these decisions. The people running the fund did. You're victim blaming. Most people don't get a very wide choice where their money goes outside the couple of options the fund managers present. I'd also venture most people do not even look at what stocks are in the fund. They'll look at the past earnings and check the box.