Elizabeth Holmes Might Accuse Ex-Boyfriend/Former Theranos Executive of Psychological Abuse (cnn.com) 116
Slashdot reader Charlotte Web quotes CNN: Elizabeth Holmes, the disgraced founder and former CEO of Theranos whose criminal trial is set to begin in a matter of days, is likely to defend herself by claiming she was the victim of a decade-long abusive relationship with her ex-boyfriend, also a former Theranos executive, court documents reveal.
According to the newly unsealed documents, Holmes plans to have an expert testify about the psychological, emotional and sexual abuse she experienced from Ramesh "Sunny" Balwani, who served as the company's COO, including the abusive tactics he allegedly used to "exert control" as well as the psychological impact. Balwani, according to a court filing, "adamantly denies" the claims. Holmes is also "likely to testify herself to the reasons why she believed, relied on, and deferred to Mr. Balwani," according to a filing from Holmes' attorney. In a separate filing from Balwani's attorneys, they acknowledge Holmes' plans to introduce evidence that Balwani verbally disparaged her, controlled what she ate, how she dressed, and who she interacted with, "essentially dominating her and erasing her capacity to make decisions." The filing calls the allegations "deeply offensive to Mr. Balwani" and "devastating personally to him...."
Balwani, a former software executive, joined Theranos in 2009, becoming Holmes' second-in-command. Nearly 20 years Holmes' senior, the pair had met in 2002 on a trip to Beijing through Stanford University's Mandarin program.
Balwani's case is slated to begin in 2022 after the completion of Holmes' trial.
According to the newly unsealed documents, Holmes plans to have an expert testify about the psychological, emotional and sexual abuse she experienced from Ramesh "Sunny" Balwani, who served as the company's COO, including the abusive tactics he allegedly used to "exert control" as well as the psychological impact. Balwani, according to a court filing, "adamantly denies" the claims. Holmes is also "likely to testify herself to the reasons why she believed, relied on, and deferred to Mr. Balwani," according to a filing from Holmes' attorney. In a separate filing from Balwani's attorneys, they acknowledge Holmes' plans to introduce evidence that Balwani verbally disparaged her, controlled what she ate, how she dressed, and who she interacted with, "essentially dominating her and erasing her capacity to make decisions." The filing calls the allegations "deeply offensive to Mr. Balwani" and "devastating personally to him...."
Balwani, a former software executive, joined Theranos in 2009, becoming Holmes' second-in-command. Nearly 20 years Holmes' senior, the pair had met in 2002 on a trip to Beijing through Stanford University's Mandarin program.
Balwani's case is slated to begin in 2022 after the completion of Holmes' trial.
When the Levee Breaks (Score:2)
"Goin' down, goin' down now...
Goin' down, goin' down...".
Re: (Score:1)
haha
The fraud was started earlier (Score:5, Insightful)
While I don't have specific knowledge and it is quite possible Sonny was abusive, the fact of the matter is that Theranos was founded 7 years prior to his joining the company.
By then, the fake deep voice, politically connected but clueless board, and the Steve Jobs wardrobe were already in place.
In my view, they are likely both guilty, but this smells of a guilty person throwing their co-conspirator under the bus.
This may backfire, of course, because if Sonny is under attack he or his lawyers may fight fire with fire as I'm sure they are privy to a lot of communications between the two that has yet to come out.
Re: The fraud was started earlier (Score:5, Insightful)
That said, per the article, they met in 2002, so the alleged manipulation could have started before Theranos was founded.
Re: (Score:2)
I agree - in cases like this where there's an ongoing scam I don't think that the abuse card should work.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
His trial has been separated, so each trial will proceed in a manner that ignores the other.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
His trial has been separated, so each trial will proceed in a manner that ignores the other.
"The trial" might ignore the other trial (whatever that means), but Sonny's lawyers certainly won't.
Re: (Score:2)
I also thought it sounded suspect at first, although having just spent barely 10 minutes looking into their history, it's not quite so far fetched.
She was barely legal & still in school when she met this guy in 2002. He was already a dot-com multimillionaire pushing his 40s.
Shortly after they began a relationship, she dropped out of school & started what would become Theranos.
Whilst he only officially came onboard as an executive in 2009, he likely played a part long before that.
It appears that it w
Because of course she will! (Score:5, Insightful)
Another Strong Wahman's downfall caused by Toxic Masculinity! Couldn't be responsible for her own actions! Nuh-uh!
Re: Because of course she will! (Score:1, Flamebait)
Yup. Feminism only lasts until its expedient for them to play the Poor Little Woman role and blame some nasty man for their problems.
Re: Because of course she will! (Score:5, Insightful)
Just because feminism exists doesn't mean people can't be abused. That's got nothing to do with the case at hand. Holmes could be innocent. She could be guilty. She could be making it all up...
But your hot take that somehow being pro-feminism means that men, or others, can't take advantage of or abuse a woman is non-sensical.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
If a man tried to make these claims, he'd be roundly mocked and not taken seriously by anyone.
Which in an of itself is a form of sexism.
Re: Because of course she will! (Score:4, Funny)
That's not the point, the point is that abuse or being taken advantage of by a woman is never an excuse for a man. If a man tried to make these claims, he'd be roundly mocked and not taken seriously by anyone. It's not that men can't be abusive, it's about the double standard of when that abuse is allowed as an excuse for a crime perpetrated on others.
Thankfully that's exactly the kind of attitudes that toxic masculinity aimes to address
Re: (Score:2)
Thankfully that's exactly the kind of attitudes that toxic masculinity aimes to address
And this case is exactly why you shouldn't always believe the alleged victim. Holmes has been caught lying about people's health care and putting 100,000s of people's lives at risk. And you don't think there is a possibility she is making the entire thing up? Also, not to point out the obvious or anything but automatically believing any group of accusers attracts con-artists by the bunch who will try to create fake charges for their advantage whether it be by blackmail, settlement or in this case getting
That is NOT what he said or implied. (Score:2)
"But your hot take that somehow being pro-feminism means that men, or others, can't take advantage of or abuse a woman is non-sensical."
That is NOT what he said or implied.
Re: Because of course she will! (Score:4, Interesting)
You take one person's actions and attach them to an entire group? Surely there's a name for that.
If it was convenient/relevant when she became the youngest billionaire in funny papers, it is convenient/relevant now.
Seen this one before (Score:4, Insightful)
According to the newly unsealed documents, Holmes plans to have an expert testify about the psychological, emotional and sexual abuse she experienced from Ramesh "Sunny" Balwani, who served as the company's COO, including the abusive tactics he allegedly used to "exert control" as well as the psychological impact.
This is a familiar Law & Order episode. Probably from the SVU show. It ends with him getting convicted of all charges and her skating on reduced charges. The closing shot is a tight closeup on her face... with a knowing smirk on it. Bitch faked the whole thing and the stalwart officers of the court never picked up on it.
Guess we'll have to see if this script is different.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, she's special, but not THAT special.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
New excuse (Score:1)
I just HAD to kill all these people, Your Honor, my boyfriend is a dick.
So is she pleading guilty? (Score:3)
This is clearly a diminished capacity defence, so presumably she's pleading guilty then? If she does this without a guilty plea that's a lot of chutzpah.
Re: (Score:2)
psychos (Score:2)
A common trait among several mental disorders is projection - claiming in others what is actually in you.
Re: (Score:3)
Of course, people who actually are victims claim abuse from others, too. We won't know until we hear the evidence what the claims actually are. We're never going to know where the truth lies because both of the accused have a lot of reasons to lie and not much incentive to tell an unvarnished truth. Adversarial courts, as they stand, are about being able to tell a story. The truth is not a major component. However, in this case, I suspect the truth is that she is both an abuser and a victim and that the que
Re: Crazy Bitch (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Bitches like her will do really dirty shit.
Smells a lot like narcissism (Score:3)
That she cares about nobody except herself isn't exactly new. Seems to me that blaming somebody else is par for the course.
Re: (Score:1)
She is using The Poor Little Me defense? And I bet she'll turn on the waterworks on cue as well.
Hopefully the jury will lock her up for a long time.
Feminism ftw (Score:5, Insightful)
When she's riding high, she's a pioneering female entrepreneur and visionary. And all the naysayers are sexists and chauvinists and misogynists.
When she's in front of a judge, she's a poor unfortunate battered woman who can't be held responsible for innocent mistakes she made in the big scary Man's World out there.
Maybe she's just a fucking crook in any circumstance she finds herself?
Re:Feminism (Score:2)
Its clear theres only two possibilities for Holmes: a. she was either a standard ponzi-style crook who happened to be female or b. she was the weak, helpless, patsy for a standard, ponzi-style crook who happened to be male.
Either way, not a good example of competent female leadership.
Re:Feminism (Score:5, Insightful)
Don't be silly. There are lots more possibilities. She was a dumbass kid who was given almost a billion dollars by dumbass investors for some cockamamie scheme. Little lies lead to big lies and now she'd rather not spend the next twenty years in jail.
She's a terrible example of any kind of leadership. She's also a great example of why the business world's obsession with the visionary leader cult of personality is dangerous.
Visionaries (Score:4, Funny)
>visionary leader cult of personality
I fantasize about being in a job interview.
Interviewer: "Our CEO is a visionary".
Me: "Wow! Does he hear voices too?"
Re: (Score:2)
She was no "dumbass kid" (Score:3)
DAKs don't pull off schemes like that, cockamamie or otherwise.
Predatory vermin come in all genders, superstitions, races, cultures and other groups.
Re: (Score:3)
Sure they do. Occasionally. They also occasionally fail spectacularly, get on TV, and have a high profile trial.
The vast majority of the time they fail quietly and maybe learn something.
If you're giving a billion dollars to one, you want to keep all of that in mind. Maybe include some adult supervision as a condition. Hell, maybe include some supervision as a condition when you give *anyone* a billion dollars.
That's why companies have boards, and why you don't want your board composed of fucking idiots.
Re: She was no "dumbass kid" (Score:2)
Dumbass kid and crook are not mutually exclusive. Often there is overlap.
On the one hand you've got crooks like Madoff who make it past retirement.
On the other you've got dumbasses like Billy McFarland who thought no one would notice that he pocketed *all* the money and didn't spend anything on planning the party.
Re: (Score:2)
Madoff, Ponzi, those guys planned what they did. Holmes thought she was going to change the world, then had to lie as she ran harder and harder into the wall of reality.
She's a crook, but she's no criminal mastermind.
Re: She was no "dumbass kid" (Score:2)
I'd put her quite a few notches below Madoff, but quite a few above Billy McFarland too. And just a few notches *above* the juicero guy.
At some point it ceases to matter whether you believe your own propaganda. What matters is how many people you manage to fool for how long.
Holmes bilked a lot of big names out of a lot of big money for a good half a decade. Madoff did it for decades, McFarland could barely hire a caterer, and the juicero guy did roll out some product before being dethroned, but not to the t
Re: (Score:2)
Holmes thought she was going to change the world, then had to lie as she ran harder and harder into the wall of reality.
She didn't HAVE to lie. When things started going sideways, there was always the option of being upfront and honest with her investors and the press, as the law generally requires.
But that doesn't pay as well, and I have zero sympathy for her.
Re: (Score:2)
Nobody of any sense assumed either. Except, perhaps, in America, where winning is everything and truth be damned.
Re: (Score:2)
Pretty much. More religion than business and certainly not rational.
Re: (Score:2)
When she's riding high, she's a pioneering female entrepreneur and visionary. And all the naysayers are sexists and chauvinists and misogynists.
The stories about her being so great back then were not credible in the least. The claim was a fundamental breakthrough made by her, but one look at her education history clearly showed that she could not even be fully conversant with the state-of-the-art.
Re: Feminism ftw (Score:2)
The same is true of many people.
History offers an important but muddled lesson:
Edison took credit for the lightbulb and electrification, even though he was what today would be a CXO type and not a bench engineer who took his idea to success.
Westinghouse was transparently a money man.
And few people, if any, ever heard of Steinmetz.
Re: (Score:1)
Ford, whose electrical engineers couldn’t solve some problems they were having with a gigantic generator, called Steinmetz in to the plant. Upon arriving, Steinmetz rejected all assistance and asked only for a notebook, pencil and cot. According to Scott, Steinmetz listened to the generator and scribbled computations on the notepad for two straight days and nights. On the second night, he asked for a ladder, climbed up the generator and made a chalk mark on its side. Then he told Ford’s skeptical engineers to remove a plate at the mark and replace sixteen windings from the field coil. They did, and the generator performed to perfection. Henry Ford was thrilled until he got an invoice from General Electric in the amount of $10,000. Ford acknowledged Steinmetz’s success but balked at the figure. He asked for an itemized bill. Steinmetz, Scott wrote, responded personally to Ford’s request with the following: Making chalk mark on generator $1. Knowing where to make mark $9,999. Ford paid the bill.
https://www.smithsonianmag.com... [smithsonianmag.com]
Re: (Score:2)
When she's riding high, she's a pioneering female entrepreneur and visionary. And all the naysayers are sexists and chauvinists and misogynists.
When she's in front of a judge, she's a poor unfortunate battered woman who can't be held responsible for innocent mistakes she made in the big scary Man's World out there.
Maybe she's just a fucking crook in any circumstance she finds herself?
Or she's an individual defined by her actions and not her gender.
She might be the manipulative fraudster who took "fake it until you make it" to the point of faked blood tests and a multi-billion dollar company.
Or she was a young person who was taken in by a manipulative older partner who then pushed her into dropping out of school to found a company based on unproven tech and then continued pushing her into continuing down that path to the point of fraud on a mass scale.
Frankly, I suspect most relationship
Re: Feminism ftw (Score:2)
That's only half the transformation. There also needs to be:
- Whatever the polar opposite of her Steve Jobs getup is
- A harsh single spotlight oriented at an odd angle in a grainy poorly framed video , that is to say the opposite of her staring into an HD camera with a ring light
She can prove it (Score:5, Funny)
Does she still do the fake voice in court? (Score:1)
Apparently she has a squeaky voice when excited.
Re: (Score:2)
It's not my fault (Score:2)
It's not my fault, it must be someone else's fault.
As the saying goes (Score:2)
There's always an excuse.
Don't take responsibility for your actions, instead, blame someone else.
Re: (Score:2)
Nobody is 100% responsible for their own actions, nobody is 0% responsible, either. The brain isn't built that way.
Re: (Score:2)
Nobody is 100% responsible for their own actions, nobody is 0% responsible, either. The brain isn't built that way.
So you're saying Holmes' brain took over and made her commit fraud (among other things)? That her brain did all the work and she was just a bystander without any thought into what she was doing.
Or, are you saying there was an unknown, outside force/being/whatever which took her down the criminal road.
If no one is responsible for their actions then people can never be held accountable. There will always be an excuse.
Re: (Score:2)
Nobody is 0% responsible either.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Have you watched court cases where the evidence is stacked against the accused, yet they are determined to fight it?
They always try to claim they are not guilty because of some reason.
Now I'm not that familiar with the specifics of this case. But if this is her main defense, I'd assume the evidence is stacked against her to the point that the jury is going to likely conclude she committed the acts she's
Re: (Score:3)
little girl (Score:2, Redundant)
I was just a dumb little girl and I was taken advantage of. Maybe, but you also committed fraud.
Sory lady, you can't have it both ways (Score:1)
It's too easy to play the strong woman who broke the glass ceiling and made it to the top when things are good, and then revert to being a weak woman controlled by an abusive man when they're not.
You broke the glass ceiling, so face the music like a man now.
Re: (Score:3)
Not a helpful attitude. For a start, there are very, very few honest men. Most are spineless cowards.
I don't think she's innocent and should face consequences for her role in things, but I also don't think there's any benefit in having her face the consequences for the actions of others, either. If her BF was an abusive ass, then I've no objections to him being raked over the coals.
This love of punishment first, hearing the case afterwards, is a major dysfunction in America. It's no wonder Europeans regard
Re: (Score:2)
You misunderstand me: if her boyfriend was abusive, of course it should be taken into account. But my assumption is that she's pulling the "weak controlled woman" card to shift the blame away from her, because that's exactly what it looks like.
When she was strutting around in the media, she didn't look abused or controlled then, and she very much endorsed the image of a woman who made it to the top on her own. That doesn't quite fit with her current narrative.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Apologies for that. I would agree with you entirely on the basis of what you're saying here.
Re: (Score:1, Redundant)
For a start, there are very, very few honest men. Most are spineless cowards.
What in the world? Does this facile and self-important judgment also include women?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
To nobody's great surprise, yes it does. Humans are not naturally brave. That's why shooty bang-bang sticks are so popular and why the truly brave are very, very rare. As any Ringworld Puppeteer will tell you, bravery isn't necessarily a good thing. There are some very good evolutionary reasons to have a small part of society possess such a quality but to not have more than that. Extreme freediving, ropeless free climbing, F1 motor racing, climbing K2 regardless of how - these things are brave and you'll no
Bigot (Score:1, Redundant)
For a start, there are very, very few honest men. Most are spineless cowards.
Wow. Just gonna openly parade your bigotry around like like that? How would you react to a man making a similar comment about women?
Re: (Score:2)
Pretty much the same way I'd react to anyone making the same comment about any segment of humanity. There are very, very few brave people. It is not human nature to be brave. That's why it has been mythologized. You don't create myths around brushing your teeth or eating breakfast, because these things are commonplace. Value comes from rarity.
She's using the "I'm just a girl" defence (Score:1)
It sounds like they are going with the tried and true "I'm just a girl" defense. You can't blame her, it's very effective.
If she doesn't get off completely she will at least get a reduced sentence because vagina.
And I Should Care About This ... (Score:3)
Why?
Is this the modern equivalent of "The Devil made me do it" ??
Re: (Score:3)
Why?
Is this the modern equivalent of "The Devil made me do it" ??
You don't see the irony here? It's more the equivalent of a man of god who spends all of his career telling the world how he always beats the devil suddenly saying "the devil made me do it".
She often spoke about the empowerment of women, and how she was a strong woman, and an prime example of how a woman could be a successful leader. But now she's all "muh muh muh muh boyfriend made me *sob* do it. waaah".
I'm going to go out on a limb her, but it's really not so out of character for a pathological liar to b
She'll probably skate (Score:1)
She has the right genitalia to get away with murder let alone fraud, and straight men aren't known for their understanding of women, pimps and other social engineers excepted.
Re: (Score:2)
She will fire her lawyers in a few months (Score:2)
Why not argue the merits of the technology? (Score:1)
Allergies (Score:2)
...by claiming she was the victim of a decade-long abusive relationship with her ex-boyfriend....
Pardon all my sneezing. I'm allergic to bullshit.
The old I was abused excuse. (Score:2)
Swap the Sexes (Score:2)
Swap the Sexes -- imagine Holmes is a man and he's blaming everything on his girlfriend, who he claims was psychologically and emotionally abusive. Would you believe him?
If you think the real Holmes could be telling the truth but not our sex-swapped Holmes, you're a female chauvinist.
If you think only men can be psychologically and emotionally abusive, or that it's mostly a male trait, you're a female chauvinist.
CEO plays the 'weak woman' card. (Score:4, Insightful)
Every feminaz1 is a victim wannabe (Score:1)
They want to be gifted the top jobs, but will always play the victim when the going gets tough.
What a fine example for young girls these feminaz1s are.
She's hot, but has the crazy eyes (Score:2)
Unless there's incontrovertible evidence that she was being blackmailed or something, this is just a weak attempt by a crooked crazy person desperate to avoid going to prison. I'm sure she'll be fought over there for who she ends up being a sex slave to.
Retroactive abuse (Score:2)
Couple of disturbing trends happening:
If they are free to escape, why do people keep going back to their abuser? I mean, it gets a bit ridiculous that people have a relationship and are not held prisoner but keep going back for abuse. We have encouraged people not to escape abusive situations by making it OK to keep getting abused. At that point we cannot even be sure the accused knows that abuse is being inflicted, since the victim is not even attempting to leave, fight back with a weapon, or report the si
The rats turning on each other (Score:2)
Boyfriend? No one will believe it (Score:1)
Just deserts (Score:1)
Companies ruined by imported Indians (Score:2)
Companies ruined or almost ruined by imported Indian labor
https://archive.is/UpV1Y [archive.is]
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
I find it very interesting that you need to specify a weedy little liberal and not someone like The Rock, Joe Tate, or Mick Foley to pit your imaginary alt-right champions against. Is it some kind of MAGA thing that you need to ensure you don't get involved in a fair fight, or just your own malevolent little compensation fantasies?
Re: (Score:1)
Please don't feed the trolls. This "marine" guy posts on every single story and promptly gets modded down to -1 in no time. Either don't reply, or if you do, reply as an AC so mods can mod you and all other replies down to -1. Then nobody will ever see it. When you reply with your karma bonus all you do is make the troll post more likely to be seen. Also, some mods might mod you down just to hide the thread.
Re: "The decapitation of neo-conservatives" (Score:1)