20 yrs. I have not reviewed the whole case in detail, but from what I understand her product did not do what she said it did and she bilked a lot of people out of $.
Not only would she get away with bilking investors out of millions and costing them tons of money, but on top of that, she would get away with putting thousands of lives in danger by providing them with false lab reports that could have jeopardized their health and well-being if actions were taken in reliance on their inaccurate results.
I just saw on LinkedIn that Holmes has made a motion for a new trial.
Here’s the quote:
“Elizabeth Holmes is hoping for a retrial. The founder of the infamous blood-testing startup Theranos was found guilty on multiple counts of fraud earlier this year, but she claims that fresh evidence now warrants another trial or hearing. According to a new court filing, former Theranos lab director and witness for the prosecution Adam Rosendorff claims his testimony was twisted and that he felt guilty for his role in Holmes’ conviction. For now, Holmes’ sentencing is scheduled for October.”
Well, as I think you said previously, that’s totally expected and normal.
Is Getting the “new evidence” thing out there now in the public possibly
a ploy to get a lighter sentence. Or would it have the opposite effect and they go harsher
on sentencing ? Or no effect at all ?