Liz Holmes Wants You to Forget About Elizabeth

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I did walk away from the piece with a lot of sympathy for her children and the cruelties of the American justice system in separating mothers from their children, it's wrong when it's poor women of color, and it's wrong when it's a privileged white women. And you can't have sympathy for children, maybe you are also a sociopath. She's also a rape victim who was clearly under the thumb of a much older, abusive dude. Again, if you can't have sympathy for that, maybe you are a sociopath. Should she go to prison? Yes. Should be separated from her children for 12 years? No. To me it is interesting that she never sold her shares. She didn't make any money. She went down with the ship. A true sociopath would be in the Caymans right now.

What? The punishing force of incarceration is literally being separated from the things you love, from normal life. That's why it counts as punishment. I have sympathy for her babies but no one put a gun to her head to have them.

No. The point of incarceration is to rehabilitate. No civilized country in the world puts a woman in jail for a crime against property for 12 years in this matter. It's appalling when poor drug mules go to jail for 12 years and are separated from their children. It's appalling that we put people in prison (not immigration prisons, but actual prisons) for immigration violations and separate them from their children. Rapists and child molesters get less time in prison for a first offense. She may be an odious person and I wouldn't be friends with her, but her sentence is ridiculous.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What’s interesting is that the author fell for her. She knew it was all fake, but Holmes is one of those people who can captivate an audience

None of it is fake. People are complex, that's all. Elizabeth Holmes did her best to attract investments (Steve Jobs turtlenecks, etc), which was very business savvy. She then lied to investors and went entirely over the legal line. It doesn't mean she does not have a motherly side.

I find this entire discussion to be actually very demeaning to women in high-powered careers: they need to project a certain way at work. aThen they go home and enjoy a warmer aspect of their personality with their kids. It's entirely NORMAL.

But here this article, and this discussion, will associate such a dichotomy with criminality and possible psychopathy. It's incredibly damaging to working women to question why they behave differently at work than at home with their kids. Because essentially, this is what OP and the author are trying to do.
Have articles been written about males behaving differently at work and with their kids? Whether or not they are criminals? NO!

You can criticize this woman all you want for her crimes. But don't claim that just because you're seeing another side of her now, it's all put on and fake.

You seem confused. You can present professionally at work, climb the corporate ladder, and what have you, without being a pathological liar, committing fraud, and hurting innocent people. You can be a pathological liar and narcissist and also love your own children--this is the dichotomy of Liz Holmes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The only reason she had kids was her hope to delay/shorten the sentence. She is a psychopath.

Exactly. This was total manipulation and now two kids have to pay for it. No honest and sane person would have two kids in quick order when facing a lengthy sentence unless she was hoping people would take sympathy.

She should have more time added for this bs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The only reason she had kids was her hope to delay/shorten the sentence. She is a psychopath.

Exactly. This was total manipulation and now two kids have to pay for it. No honest and sane person would have two kids in quick order when facing a lengthy sentence unless she was hoping people would take sympathy.

She should have more time added for this bs.

And this is why the U.S. is content to let children be shot en masse. The "she should have more time added" are just as devoid of a moral compass as any fraudster. Either getting off on human suffering or just missing any empathy chip. Really scary stuff.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I did walk away from the piece with a lot of sympathy for her children and the cruelties of the American justice system in separating mothers from their children, it's wrong when it's poor women of color, and it's wrong when it's a privileged white women. And you can't have sympathy for children, maybe you are also a sociopath. She's also a rape victim who was clearly under the thumb of a much older, abusive dude. Again, if you can't have sympathy for that, maybe you are a sociopath. Should she go to prison? Yes. Should be separated from her children for 12 years? No. To me it is interesting that she never sold her shares. She didn't make any money. She went down with the ship. A true sociopath would be in the Caymans right now.

What? The punishing force of incarceration is literally being separated from the things you love, from normal life. That's why it counts as punishment. I have sympathy for her babies but no one put a gun to her head to have them.

No. The point of incarceration is to rehabilitate. No civilized country in the world puts a woman in jail for a crime against property for 12 years in this matter. It's appalling when poor drug mules go to jail for 12 years and are separated from their children. It's appalling that we put people in prison (not immigration prisons, but actual prisons) for immigration violations and separate them from their children. Rapists and child molesters get less time in prison for a first offense. She may be an odious person and I wouldn't be friends with her, but her sentence is ridiculous.

Where is your sympathy to the man who received the same sentence and is in fact already serving his time?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What’s interesting is that the author fell for her. She knew it was all fake, but Holmes is one of those people who can captivate an audience

None of it is fake. People are complex, that's all. Elizabeth Holmes did her best to attract investments (Steve Jobs turtlenecks, etc), which was very business savvy. She then lied to investors and went entirely over the legal line. It doesn't mean she does not have a motherly side.

I find this entire discussion to be actually very demeaning to women in high-powered careers: they need to project a certain way at work. aThen they go home and enjoy a warmer aspect of their personality with their kids. It's entirely NORMAL.

But here this article, and this discussion, will associate such a dichotomy with criminality and possible psychopathy. It's incredibly damaging to working women to question why they behave differently at work than at home with their kids. Because essentially, this is what OP and the author are trying to do.
Have articles been written about males behaving differently at work and with their kids? Whether or not they are criminals? NO!

You can criticize this woman all you want for her crimes. But don't claim that just because you're seeing another side of her now, it's all put on and fake.

You seem confused. You can present professionally at work, climb the corporate ladder, and what have you, without being a pathological liar, committing fraud, and hurting innocent people. You can be a pathological liar and narcissist and also love your own children--this is the dichotomy of Liz Holmes.

Exactly - she didn't defraud poor idiots or middle class POC. She had the audacity to rip off rich white dudes and did it whilst being young and fairly good looking. She should be sent to the guillotine, toute de suite.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The only reason she had kids was her hope to delay/shorten the sentence. She is a psychopath.

Exactly. This was total manipulation and now two kids have to pay for it. No honest and sane person would have two kids in quick order when facing a lengthy sentence unless she was hoping people would take sympathy.

She should have more time added for this bs.

And this is why the U.S. is content to let children be shot en masse. The "she should have more time added" are just as devoid of a moral compass as any fraudster. Either getting off on human suffering or just missing any empathy chip. Really scary stuff.

Give me a break. What a stupid statement.

She did this to her kids. No one else. And she did it knowingly and intentionally. Did she have a kid even after she was found guilty?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What’s interesting is that the author fell for her. She knew it was all fake, but Holmes is one of those people who can captivate an audience

None of it is fake. People are complex, that's all. Elizabeth Holmes did her best to attract investments (Steve Jobs turtlenecks, etc), which was very business savvy. She then lied to investors and went entirely over the legal line. It doesn't mean she does not have a motherly side.

I find this entire discussion to be actually very demeaning to women in high-powered careers: they need to project a certain way at work. aThen they go home and enjoy a warmer aspect of their personality with their kids. It's entirely NORMAL.

But here this article, and this discussion, will associate such a dichotomy with criminality and possible psychopathy. It's incredibly damaging to working women to question why they behave differently at work than at home with their kids. Because essentially, this is what OP and the author are trying to do.
Have articles been written about males behaving differently at work and with their kids? Whether or not they are criminals? NO!

You can criticize this woman all you want for her crimes. But don't claim that just because you're seeing another side of her now, it's all put on and fake.

You seem confused. You can present professionally at work, climb the corporate ladder, and what have you, without being a pathological liar, committing fraud, and hurting innocent people. You can be a pathological liar and narcissist and also love your own children--this is the dichotomy of Liz Holmes.

Exactly - she didn't defraud poor idiots or middle class POC. She had the audacity to rip off rich white dudes and did it whilst being young and fairly good looking. She should be sent to the guillotine, toute de suite.

I am sorry you don’t understand how the markets works. Her conduct absolutely affected middle class people with any mutual funds, pension plans etc

[Anonymous]

My company flew her in to speak to our executive leadership team when she was riding high. I remember the all black outfit and the strange voice. It sounded great but I just had doubts that she someone how solved blood testing and could be a disrupter. I think 8 months later the WSJ articles started. She duped a lot of wealthy people and a few smart ones too.

She needs to go to the Fed pen and do her time. Sorry for her children but they are pawns in this drama.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:My company flew her in to speak to our executive leadership team when she was riding high. I remember the all black outfit and the strange voice. It sounded great but I just had doubts that she someone how solved blood testing and could be a disrupter. I think 8 months later the WSJ articles started. She duped a lot of wealthy people and a few smart ones too.

She needs to go to the Fed pen and do her time. Sorry for her children but they are pawns in this drama.

+1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What’s interesting is that the author fell for her. She knew it was all fake, but Holmes is one of those people who can captivate an audience

None of it is fake. People are complex, that's all. Elizabeth Holmes did her best to attract investments (Steve Jobs turtlenecks, etc), which was very business savvy. She then lied to investors and went entirely over the legal line. It doesn't mean she does not have a motherly side.

I find this entire discussion to be actually very demeaning to women in high-powered careers: they need to project a certain way at work. aThen they go home and enjoy a warmer aspect of their personality with their kids. It's entirely NORMAL.

But here this article, and this discussion, will associate such a dichotomy with criminality and possible psychopathy. It's incredibly damaging to working women to question why they behave differently at work than at home with their kids. Because essentially, this is what OP and the author are trying to do.
Have articles been written about males behaving differently at work and with their kids? Whether or not they are criminals? NO!

You can criticize this woman all you want for her crimes. But don't claim that just because you're seeing another side of her now, it's all put on and fake.

You seem confused. You can present professionally at work, climb the corporate ladder, and what have you, without being a pathological liar, committing fraud, and hurting innocent people. You can be a pathological liar and narcissist and also love your own children--this is the dichotomy of Liz Holmes.

Exactly - she didn't defraud poor idiots or middle class POC. She had the audacity to rip off rich white dudes and did it whilst being young and fairly good looking. She should be sent to the guillotine, toute de suite.

While this is all true, her real crime is faking a blood testing machine with the potential impact to give people inaccurate test results. People might inadvertently spread communicable diseases like HIV and hep or not seek needed treatment.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What’s interesting is that the author fell for her. She knew it was all fake, but Holmes is one of those people who can captivate an audience

None of it is fake. People are complex, that's all. Elizabeth Holmes did her best to attract investments (Steve Jobs turtlenecks, etc), which was very business savvy. She then lied to investors and went entirely over the legal line. It doesn't mean she does not have a motherly side.

I find this entire discussion to be actually very demeaning to women in high-powered careers: they need to project a certain way at work. aThen they go home and enjoy a warmer aspect of their personality with their kids. It's entirely NORMAL.

But here this article, and this discussion, will associate such a dichotomy with criminality and possible psychopathy. It's incredibly damaging to working women to question why they behave differently at work than at home with their kids. Because essentially, this is what OP and the author are trying to do.
Have articles been written about males behaving differently at work and with their kids? Whether or not they are criminals? NO!

You can criticize this woman all you want for her crimes. But don't claim that just because you're seeing another side of her now, it's all put on and fake.

You seem confused. You can present professionally at work, climb the corporate ladder, and what have you, without being a pathological liar, committing fraud, and hurting innocent people. You can be a pathological liar and narcissist and also love your own children--this is the dichotomy of Liz Holmes.

Exactly - she didn't defraud poor idiots or middle class POC. She had the audacity to rip off rich white dudes and did it whilst being young and fairly good looking. She should be sent to the guillotine, toute de suite.

While this is all true, her real crime is faking a blood testing machine with the potential impact to give people inaccurate test results. People might inadvertently spread communicable diseases like HIV and hep or not seek needed treatment.

But they didn't -the checks and balances of the system worked - it never went to market. No one except the investors were injured.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I did walk away from the piece with a lot of sympathy for her children and the cruelties of the American justice system in separating mothers from their children, it's wrong when it's poor women of color, and it's wrong when it's a privileged white women. And you can't have sympathy for children, maybe you are also a sociopath. She's also a rape victim who was clearly under the thumb of a much older, abusive dude. Again, if you can't have sympathy for that, maybe you are a sociopath. Should she go to prison? Yes. Should be separated from her children for 12 years? No. To me it is interesting that she never sold her shares. She didn't make any money. She went down with the ship. A true sociopath would be in the Caymans right now.

What? The punishing force of incarceration is literally being separated from the things you love, from normal life. That's why it counts as punishment. I have sympathy for her babies but no one put a gun to her head to have them.

No. The point of incarceration is to rehabilitate. No civilized country in the world puts a woman in jail for a crime against property for 12 years in this matter. It's appalling when poor drug mules go to jail for 12 years and are separated from their children. It's appalling that we put people in prison (not immigration prisons, but actual prisons) for immigration violations and separate them from their children. Rapists and child molesters get less time in prison for a first offense. She may be an odious person and I wouldn't be friends with her, but her sentence is ridiculous.

.

She could have taken a plea and had a very reduced sentence. She chose to not admit any wrongdoing, blame it all on her colleagues, and claim personal persecution. She obviously doesn’t feel remorse and would start another company tomorrow likely using the same tactics. Yes people like that need to go to prison. She obviously needs a reality check.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I did walk away from the piece with a lot of sympathy for her children and the cruelties of the American justice system in separating mothers from their children, it's wrong when it's poor women of color, and it's wrong when it's a privileged white women. And you can't have sympathy for children, maybe you are also a sociopath. She's also a rape victim who was clearly under the thumb of a much older, abusive dude. Again, if you can't have sympathy for that, maybe you are a sociopath. Should she go to prison? Yes. Should be separated from her children for 12 years? No. To me it is interesting that she never sold her shares. She didn't make any money. She went down with the ship. A true sociopath would be in the Caymans right now.

What? The punishing force of incarceration is literally being separated from the things you love, from normal life. That's why it counts as punishment. I have sympathy for her babies but no one put a gun to her head to have them.

No. The point of incarceration is to rehabilitate. No civilized country in the world puts a woman in jail for a crime against property for 12 years in this matter. It's appalling when poor drug mules go to jail for 12 years and are separated from their children. It's appalling that we put people in prison (not immigration prisons, but actual prisons) for immigration violations and separate them from their children. Rapists and child molesters get less time in prison for a first offense. She may be an odious person and I wouldn't be friends with her, but her sentence is ridiculous.

.

She could have taken a plea and had a very reduced sentence. She chose to not admit any wrongdoing, blame it all on her colleagues, and claim personal persecution. She obviously doesn’t feel remorse and would start another company tomorrow likely using the same tactics. Yes people like that need to go to prison. She obviously needs a reality check.

She doesn't think she was guilty. The same people literally calling for her death are arguing that Adnan Syed is a hero for never admitting wrong-doing. People in this country are allowed to say they are not guilty - even if they are convicted. It's a fundamental right of our criminal justice system. Now, I think she was guilty, and I think she should go to prison. I also think her sentence is horrific. I think a teenage rape victim who drops out of college and loses herself in a predatory relationship and did bad things in tandem with others should have a punishment that fits the crime.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I did walk away from the piece with a lot of sympathy for her children and the cruelties of the American justice system in separating mothers from their children, it's wrong when it's poor women of color, and it's wrong when it's a privileged white women. And you can't have sympathy for children, maybe you are also a sociopath. She's also a rape victim who was clearly under the thumb of a much older, abusive dude. Again, if you can't have sympathy for that, maybe you are a sociopath. Should she go to prison? Yes. Should be separated from her children for 12 years? No. To me it is interesting that she never sold her shares. She didn't make any money. She went down with the ship. A true sociopath would be in the Caymans right now.

What? The punishing force of incarceration is literally being separated from the things you love, from normal life. That's why it counts as punishment. I have sympathy for her babies but no one put a gun to her head to have them.

No. The point of incarceration is to rehabilitate. No civilized country in the world puts a woman in jail for a crime against property for 12 years in this matter. It's appalling when poor drug mules go to jail for 12 years and are separated from their children. It's appalling that we put people in prison (not immigration prisons, but actual prisons) for immigration violations and separate them from their children. Rapists and child molesters get less time in prison for a first offense. She may be an odious person and I wouldn't be friends with her, but her sentence is ridiculous.

.

She could have taken a plea and had a very reduced sentence. She chose to not admit any wrongdoing, blame it all on her colleagues, and claim personal persecution. She obviously doesn’t feel remorse and would start another company tomorrow likely using the same tactics. Yes people like that need to go to prison. She obviously needs a reality check.

She doesn't think she was guilty. The same people literally calling for her death are arguing that Adnan Syed is a hero for never admitting wrong-doing. People in this country are allowed to say they are not guilty - even if they are convicted. It's a fundamental right of our criminal justice system. Now, I think she was guilty, and I think she should go to prison. I also think her sentence is horrific. I think a teenage rape victim who drops out of college and loses herself in a predatory relationship and did bad things in tandem with others should have a punishment that fits the crime.

The judge noted her refusal to admit wrongdoing was a factor in the sentencing. Without a strong sentence, there is no reason for her not to pull another con again. She will also be out in 5-6 years on probation. I don’t find her backstory to be in any way mitigating. Being a rape or abuse victim does not excuse this fraud and I certainly don’t believe she was doing Sunny’s bidding at all. In fact she has an extremely privileged background which likely enabled her to fool so many. It’s sad when any parents of young children go to jail, but she was fully aware of that risk, and obviously her children have a very comfortable life with their father, just another way in which she has secured her future.