You can have a vision, a goal, a mission as Holmes would call it, and still commit fraud.
At times Holmes was shown evidence that she herself admitted didn’t look good. She said on more than one occasion that there were things she would have done differently in hindsight.
One particular example that sticks out is when the logos of Pfizer and GlaxoSmithKline were used to suggest the two pharmaceutical companies had endorsed Theranos. They had done no such thing. The prosecution made this a major plank of their argument – as close as they could get to a smoking gun.
Holmes’s defence also had a major hole in it. Almost everyone you speak to about Theranos says that Holmes ran the company like an obsessive autocrat. She knew everything about what was going on.
Yet part of her defence was that she didn’t know what was happening in her company – or the major problems with the tech. All too often she said she wasn’t aware of information put to her by the prosecution, or that she didn’t remember key events. It didn’t ring true.
Holmes always wanted to be in control. And some have speculated that’s why she decided to testify, to be in the driving seat of her own defence. It didn’t work.
Read More at BBC
Read the rest at BBC