Anonymous wrote:

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.

You have completely missed what this woman is. I bet you supported Sandusky. She was not under the thumb of an older man. Your comment about her "going down with the ship" is ridiculous and meaningless. Where was she going to go? More than likely the pregnancies were intentional to influence the outcome of her trial.

We aren't sociopaths. You lack critical thinking skills.

Nope. And your misogyny is on fleek.

NP - It's not misogyny to recognize her as the sociopath that she is. Who gets pregnant a second time while on trial, knowing that if convicted it might be 10+ years? By playing the unfair treatment/abused woman card, she makes it that much harder for all the women out there who are trying to succeed with legitimate business ideas or are abused.

I would have had a modicum of respect for her if she took some ownership. Just a modicum. She still was knowingly testing cancer patients and other sick people with devices that didn't work. Health care/biotech is different from tech - you shouldn't fake it til you make it.

Yep - the minute you use language like "abused woman card" - you gotta own your knee-deep sexism. All the cool kids hate women, too, so you're in good company.

NP. No, the sexism is holding women to a different, easier standard than men.

Mmmm. You're giving lots of Madonna-whore dichotomy, here. Not nearly as much hate channeled at the tech bros who unjustly enriched themselves and fled the US. Why? Some introspection is needed.

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.

You have completely missed what this woman is. I bet you supported Sandusky. She was not under the thumb of an older man. Your comment about her "going down with the ship" is ridiculous and meaningless. Where was she going to go? More than likely the pregnancies were intentional to influence the outcome of her trial.

We aren't sociopaths. You lack critical thinking skills.

Nope. And your misogyny is on fleek.

NP - It's not misogyny to recognize her as the sociopath that she is. Who gets pregnant a second time while on trial, knowing that if convicted it might be 10+ years? By playing the unfair treatment/abused woman card, she makes it that much harder for all the women out there who are trying to succeed with legitimate business ideas or are abused.

I would have had a modicum of respect for her if she took some ownership. Just a modicum. She still was knowingly testing cancer patients and other sick people with devices that didn't work. Health care/biotech is different from tech - you shouldn't fake it til you make it.

Yep - the minute you use language like "abused woman card" - you gotta own your knee-deep sexism. All the cool kids hate women, too, so you're in good company.

NP. No, the sexism is holding women to a different, easier standard than men.

Where are her parents? Guessing any money her dad made from being an Enron VP has dried up by now?

Anonymous wrote:So the husband is paying the legal bills via his trust fund? Or am I missing something? Seemed like they denied that?

He’s relatively well off, his parents own three hotels & homes in the Bay Area.

So the husband is paying the legal bills via his trust fund? Or am I missing something? Seemed like they denied that?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How is this woman not in jail already?
Must be nice to be rich and white.

Last minute appeal that’s how.
Money buys you good lawyers to look for any errors in the sentencing.
The poor have to suck it up and do the time they were given

A poor person would already have 5 years served at this point, of course a poor person would probably have a sentence twice as long too

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.

There is no evidence that Sunny was abusive. She literally was just trying the “blame the brown guy” defense. Everyone who worked with her said that she was running the show. This is part of her MO when she needs something she adopts a new persona and gets a new guy to help. Needs an early investor on a crap idea? Starts dating Sunny. Needs someone to pay her legal bills? Find this new dude who wouldn’t you know it is a trust fund baby. It’s part of the grift.

Or you are playing "drag the woman" -which is pretty much the oldest trick in the book. He was dating an 18 year old when he was 37 (and married) - so he's an ephebophilie - and the age and power differential is textbook set-up for, at minimum, emotional abuse. And there was third-testimony about the emotional abuse. Elizabeth also recounted physical and sexual abuse by him. So, yes, there was evidence of abuse at trial. She can be awful, but he's clearly a pervert, immoral, with very dirty hands.

"Elizabeth recounted abuse" is not evidence. It's a testimony by an interested party.

Also, I hate to break it to your politically correct self, but being attracted to 18-year old women is not perverted. That's the age of peaking sexual and physical attractiveness, and lusting after them is textbook hetero male sexual behavior. Women of that age have been on top of the marriage market for centuries.

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.

Anonymous wrote:How is this woman not in jail already?
Must be nice to be rich and white.

Last minute appeal that’s how.
Money buys you good lawyers to look for any errors in the sentencing.
The poor have to suck it up and do the time they were given

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OMG. This writer got rollllllllllled.

Then I realized why they kept opening the door wider. Ms. Holmes is unlike anyone I’ve ever met — modest but mesmerizing. If you are in her presence, it is impossible not to believe her, not to be taken with her and be taken in by her. Liz Holmes and Billy Evans know that. I politely declined their invitation."

Where's the barf emoji when you need one. This is almost as bad as Rolling Stone's cover of the Boston Marathon Bomber all dolled up with the tousled hair.

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.

You have completely missed what this woman is. I bet you supported Sandusky. She was not under the thumb of an older man. Your comment about her "going down with the ship" is ridiculous and meaningless. Where was she going to go? More than likely the pregnancies were intentional to influence the outcome of her trial.

We aren't sociopaths. You lack critical thinking skills.

Nope. And your misogyny is on fleek.

NP - It's not misogyny to recognize her as the sociopath that she is. Who gets pregnant a second time while on trial, knowing that if convicted it might be 10+ years? By playing the unfair treatment/abused woman card, she makes it that much harder for all the women out there who are trying to succeed with legitimate business ideas or are abused.

I would have had a modicum of respect for her if she took some ownership. Just a modicum. She still was knowingly testing cancer patients and other sick people with devices that didn't work. Health care/biotech is different from tech - you shouldn't fake it til you make it.

Yep - the minute you use language like "abused woman card" - you gotta own your knee-deep sexism. All the cool kids hate women, too, so you're in good company.

Anonymous wrote:OMG. This writer got rollllllllllled.

I read it as overwhelmingly critical, e.g.: "One of these friends ... requested anonymity to caution me not to believe everything Ms. Holmes says."

Then the devastating end:

"That Friday, the couple were getting ready to host a group of friends from the Bay Area. They invited me to stay. They repeatedly invited me to come back, to bring my family. We could all go to the zoo together.

I appreciated their hospitality, but I didn’t fully understand it. Usually interview subjects can’t wait to get rid of me.

Then I realized why they kept opening the door wider. Ms. Holmes is unlike anyone I’ve ever met — modest but mesmerizing. If you are in her presence, it is impossible not to believe her, not to be taken with her and be taken in by her. Liz Holmes and Billy Evans know that. I politely declined their invitation."

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.

You have completely missed what this woman is. I bet you supported Sandusky. She was not under the thumb of an older man. Your comment about her "going down with the ship" is ridiculous and meaningless. Where was she going to go? More than likely the pregnancies were intentional to influence the outcome of her trial.

We aren't sociopaths. You lack critical thinking skills.

Nope. And your misogyny is on fleek.

NP - It's not misogyny to recognize her as the sociopath that she is. Who gets pregnant a second time while on trial, knowing that if convicted it might be 10+ years? By playing the unfair treatment/abused woman card, she makes it that much harder for all the women out there who are trying to succeed with legitimate business ideas or are abused.

I would have had a modicum of respect for her if she took some ownership. Just a modicum. She still was knowingly testing cancer patients and other sick people with devices that didn't work. Health care/biotech is different from tech - you shouldn't fake it til you make it.

Anonymous wrote:I read the article the other day when it came out. Her story is one of a grifter who thought she was smarter than she was. I do feel empathy for her 2 babies. I really wonder if she had the babies to try to gain sympathy from the judge to try to avoid serving her prison sentence.

I feel like at first she got in over her head and felt like she couldn't admit her mistakes because of the pressure on her if the company failed and she disappointed her investors, but somewhere along the line she started making larger and larger justifications to herself for her lies. I also feel that "fake it till you make it" is a gamble that has paid off for others so that was another justification she used.

I can't decide if I think she's a stone cold grifter or that she had a mental break along the line. Doesn't excuse her behavior, but I wonder.

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.

You have completely missed what this woman is. I bet you supported Sandusky. She was not under the thumb of an older man. Your comment about her "going down with the ship" is ridiculous and meaningless. Where was she going to go? More than likely the pregnancies were intentional to influence the outcome of her trial.

We aren't sociopaths. You lack critical thinking skills.

Nope. And your misogyny is on fleek.