[ozzythecat]

> The judge should not view Theranos as "a house of cards," but as the "ambitious, inventive, and indisputably valuable enterprise it was," they wrote. "The court's difficult task is to look beyond those surface-level views when it fashions its sentence."

I’m trying to stay level headed and reason about this. I am a layman when it comes to the US justice system, but I find this insulting and making a mockery of the justice system.

It was absolutely a fraudulent, house of cards. The courts task is to actually carry out justice, and keep in mind the fact that Elizabeth Holmes carefully concatenated an imagine of success, even dressing like Steve Jobs.

Forget the investors. This crime defrauded actual patients. An 18 month sentence? Ha! Why not just abolish the entire judicial branch of government? What’s even the point?

[Kranar]

>This crime defrauded actual patients.

It is somewhat worth pointing out that she was found not guilty of defrauding patients. She was tried on that count but found not guilty and one of the jurors has come out to say that they actually do not think that Holmes had ever defrauded any patients or doctors, only that she had defrauded investors.

This is in stark contrast to Balwani who was recently found guilty of defrauding patients and doctors.

[voakbasda]

I think this reflects a failure of the justice system. The fact that a jury acquitted her does not mean she is innocent. It means the jury was duped by yet more of her lies.

[Aeolun]

How does that actually work? Did they not give bullshit test results to patients?