Regular readers here know I'm fascinated with the case of Elizabeth Holmes and her one-time "darling-of-the-media" Silicon Valley start-up company, Theranos. Holmes had all of the stuff the propatainment media loves: she is attractive, intelligent, "liberal", and best of all, had an idea that was captivating: being able to medically test for a multitude of diseases from a tiny drop of blood, and to do so using a "home test device" no bigger than a desk top computer. No waiting for test results for days to come back from a remote medical testing laboratory. Her start-up, Theranos, at one time had on its board of directors the likes of Riley Bechtel (of the [in]famous corporation fame), Henry Kissinger and George Schultz, both former cabinet members, and General Mattis, to name but a few.
Pay attention to that list, because we'll get back to it.
But to return to Holmes' and Theranos' claims for a moment. Allegedly unable to deliver on her promise, the company spiraled into oblivion, leaving Holmes under indictment for fraud. But as I've detailed in a number of blogs, I have to wonder just how fraudulent her claims and basic idea really were, or are. In fact, her claims take on an especial relevancy in the age of the Fauci-Lieber-Wuhan virus narrative, and the continued controversy over the tests, the statistics, and their reliability.
(For my previous blogs on Holmes and Theranos and their claims, see
But now, it seems, word is beginning to trickle out of the Holmes' defense team camp of the nature of the defense she plans to mount, according to this brief article shared by L.G.L.R. and H.H. (and a big thank you for sharing this):
The article notes the following:
Elizabeth Holmes' lawyers seem like they are teeing up a "mental health" defense that may have something to do with claiming Holmes was the victim of "violence, trauma or victimization".
And 2020 has been the perfect year for a defense of such sorts to not only hold up, but likely overwhelm and win a "woke" jury unanimously.
The former Theranos Inc. Chief Executive has been ordered by a federal judge to undergo examination from U.S. government experts after her lawyers have suggested they could offer up evidence that shows she suffered from a "metal disease or defect", according to Reuters.
U.S. District Judge Edward Davila in San Jose, California ordered on Wednesday that a psychologist and psychiatrist chosen by the government should examine Holmes for 14 hours over 2 days. The examinations will also be recorded on video.
The order comes after Holmes' lawyers suggested they were going to introduce evidence from Mindy Mechanic, a California State University at Fullerton professor specializing in psychosocial consequences of violence, trauma and victimization. The defense said the evidence would be “relating to a mental disease or defect or any other mental condition of the defendant bearing on the issue of guilt.”
In other words, it sounds to us like Holmes is going to claim she was the victim of violence (perhaps domestic?).
Holmes' mental health had been discussed previously in court documents, but there had been no mention of trauma or violence in her past.
And that, in effect, is the sum total of the article, other than its citation of a tweet from a Mr. Sean Davis that it appeared to him that Holmes plans a new twist on the mental defect defense, the "sociopath defense". I've no idea if Ms. Holmes is or is not a sociopath, but the defense strategy presents some interesting possibilities...
... not the least of which - especially in the context of my previous blogs about the subject which are listed above - is what such a defense might imply for the members of her board, the previously noted Bechtels, Schultzes, Kissingers, and Mattises, not to mention the fawning propatainment media, for it puts the whole story into a bit of a problematic. If the defense is successful, then the more serious issues raised by Theranos and its claims conveniently disappears: "We were all taken in by a clever and manipulative sociopath." Taken in, indeed, it would seem, for years and years. But imagine if any of them are called by the defense team to testify about any unusual behavior they might have noticed which might tend to confirm the "sociopathic defense". How would the prosecution impugn such testimony? "What convinced you, General Mattis/Secretary Schultz/Secretary Kissinger/Mr. Bechtel that her claims were worth your being a member of her board? Surely a man such as yourself, with your wide experience in government and the corporate world, would not be inclined to be involved in such a project without at least some indication of the scientific worthiness of the claims. And surely, with your wide experience, you must have been able to spot suspicious behavior, so what specifically convinced you to take her claims seriously?"
At that point, one can imagine considerable "pausing to reflect" on the response. In the media, this is called "dead air"...
With that type of questioning, one might have to introduce all sorts of evidence and hypotheses - such as I have tried to outline in those blogs I've listed above - into the trial process. And that just well may be what's really the goal here. After all, Ms. Holmes has been vilified by the very same press that once courted her, and vilified precisely for being a fraud, crazy, hysterical, subject to temper tantrums... you name it. What seldom gets mentioned are the nature of her claims themselves, and the thinking behind them (See that article about the Toshiba company linked above.)
And thus, a sociopathic defense may be the perfect way to force those claims onto center stage, for you'll note that if Toshiba is claiming to do almost exactly the same thing that Ms. Holmes was claiming she wanted to do years earlier, then that throws a king-sized spanner into the works. And if, on the other hands, those claims are indeed spurious, then the "sociopath defense" won't hurt her, and leave other folks with a whole lot of 'splainin to do.
This, in short, will be very interesting to watch.
See you on the flip side...