Spin Docs: You Can See Everything (2026): Rewatch: Is Elizabeth Holmes Deceiving Us?

[00:00:00] [SPEAKER_01] I'm Anya Kane, and today we're going to be revisiting You Can See Everything, the 2026 documentary film. Content warning, this episode contains discussion of suicide, rape, and intimate partner violence. So baby, now we got Bad Blood, Secrets and Lies in Silicon Valley Startup by John Kerry Rue. This is a fantastic book about the Elizabeth Holmes saga. And in anticipation for this episode, I actually took the time to reread the entire story of the story.

[00:00:30] [SPEAKER_01] And you and I also went to see You Can See Everything for a second time. That's right. Now, before we get into discussing this film for the second time, why don't we talk about spoilers, Kevin?

[00:00:42] [SPEAKER_00] We're going to be talking about the entire movie. So if you haven't seen it and planned to, you might want to avoid this. And if you haven't seen it and don't plan to, I think we'll give you enough context to understand what we're saying.

[00:00:56] [SPEAKER_01] I think you should all go see it. Honestly, I think it's a terrific, fascinating film and I think it's worth seeing. But yes, don't listen to this and then get mad at us for discussing spoilers because there's going to be spoilers all throughout this.

[00:01:10] [SPEAKER_00] And there's lots of other reasons to get mad at us.

[00:01:13] [SPEAKER_01] Yeah, you could pick a reason, but not this one. So let's just get into it then, okay?

[00:01:19] [SPEAKER_00] Let's do it.

[00:01:20] [SPEAKER_01] My name is Anya Kane. I'm a journalist.

[00:01:23] [SPEAKER_00] And I'm Kevin Greenlee. I'm an attorney. And this is The Murder Sheet. We're a true crime podcast focused on original reporting, interviews and deep dives into murder cases. We're The Murder Sheet.

[00:01:35] [SPEAKER_01] And this is Spindox. You can see everything. 2026 rewatch. Is Elizabeth Holmes deceiving us?

[00:02:27] [SPEAKER_00] So if you haven't seen it, the first half of the film is largely Nathan Fielder having a lot of conversations with Elizabeth Holmes, this woman who was convicted on charges related to fraud and is currently serving time in prison. She maintains, oh, that's not right. I didn't commit any fraud.

[00:02:48] [SPEAKER_00] And one thing I think is interesting about those scenes is to some extent, she at least tries to come off in a sympathetic way.

[00:03:01] [SPEAKER_00] And it reminded me an awful lot of something we see in the true crime space where there are a lot of people who are charged and even convicted of crimes who then go on innocence podcasts or innocence programs and try to sound in a way they think is positive to try to fool people.

[00:03:23] [SPEAKER_00] And it just seemed like the very same narrative we've seen over and over again and all sorts of claims of wrongful conviction.

[00:03:32] [SPEAKER_01] Once you see the pattern, there's no one seeing it. And a lot of it involves behaving in ways that are palatable to a mass audience or at least centering that and centering the relatability factor of the person and centering, oh, they seem really nice. They don't seem like they're lying to me right now. And the film really interrogates that impulse, I think, which is great. It should be interrogated. Having someone flash their big blue eyes at you does not mean that they're not lying. Right.

[00:04:02] [SPEAKER_01] Some people are good at lying. There are talented liars. They can lie while seeming like they're not lying. They can lie while seeming really sincere. But you have you have to remember that when you're dealing with anybody. And frankly, the more messed up someone is probably the better at lying and more convincing of a liar they are.

[00:04:18] [SPEAKER_00] Yeah. And I think whether you look at this and see her as a victim or as a victimizer, I think that says a lot about how you see quite a bit in true crime. And if you see her in a particular way, I think I could probably guess how you feel about other cases.

[00:04:39] [SPEAKER_01] Yeah, I completely. It's a litmus test. So that was the first half. And we did cover that in our previous spin docs on this. We wanted to do sort of a less spoilery version before we did this. And that really focused on the first half.

[00:04:54] [SPEAKER_00] And then you're going to go into some detail about what you've been reading about in her history and her crimes. So as a preview of what you're going to say later, is it fair to say that there is no doubt that she's very, very guilty?

[00:05:12] [SPEAKER_01] Yes. Yeah. There's no doubt that she's highly she's very much guilty of what she was charged with. She's probably guilty of more than that. And she's a highly manipulative person.

[00:05:23] [SPEAKER_00] Yes.

[00:05:24] [SPEAKER_01] Who seemingly has no remorse for her actions. So, yes, that's my takeaway.

[00:05:31] [SPEAKER_00] And then I think to some extent the second half is about Fielder almost trying to find an excuse for her because it becomes a question of, oh, her partner, Billy. Billy Evans. He made a deal with us documentary filmmakers that he's going to get a cut of money from the film.

[00:06:01] [SPEAKER_00] And Elizabeth doesn't seem to know about that. So if there is a world where he is doing things on her behalf that don't look good, but she doesn't know that, isn't she possibly a victim? And if she's a victim in this case, well, who knows? Maybe she's a victim in the earlier case. And so it becomes to some degree a discussion of that. And do you feel like they were trying to find an excuse for her?

[00:06:28] [SPEAKER_01] I think that is what he uncovers in the first half. Or not uncovers, but what he kind of is getting at in the first half. In discussions that Fielder's having with different people, including Elizabeth Holmes' father, notably, it's revealed that her former romantic partner, Sonny Balwani, was this awful, awful guy. And he's the reason things went wrong at Theranos. He's all to blame. She was innocent.

[00:06:58] [SPEAKER_01] He did all the bad things. And then she got blamed because she was in this toxic, abusive relationship. So they're putting it all on him. And so what I think the second half that introduces, and meanwhile, at the same time that this is going on, in that very conversation, it's a fascinating scene where Nathan Fielder's having this conversation with Chris Holmes, Elizabeth's father, who's telling him all this.

[00:07:22] [SPEAKER_01] And you have Billy Evans, her new partner, flitting around the conversation, sort of seemingly trying to cut them off from talking and communicating. It's very ominous. And this is something he keeps doing throughout the film. And you're beginning to see certain little subtle signs that he seems like a highly controlling and maybe kind of off-putting dude.

[00:07:45] [SPEAKER_00] And Billy's a guy who thinks he's good at manipulating. He's not as good at it as he thinks he is. So it's really obvious to see. So arguably a subtext, a part of the film is, oh, he is bad. He is controlling her.

[00:07:58] [SPEAKER_01] He really made, I'm just going to, on a personal level, from early on, there was something about him that, and his mannerisms and his behavior towards others that made my skin crawl. And then when we saw him in the second half, all of that sort of got even more charged and overt and off-putting. We can talk some about that. So what the second half is, though, so we're having, we had the Sonny Balwani set up.

[00:08:27] [SPEAKER_01] Then we have Billy's behavior that starts escalating at some point, especially in the second half. And then we have Nathan Fielder sort of left with the question of, is Elizabeth Holmes back in this toxic relationship sort of setting? And that's why things are continuing to look sketchy.

[00:08:52] [SPEAKER_01] Because when you, when you mentioned the film, film subjects in a documentary don't get paid. It basically, it gets into all sorts of very dubious ethical territory at a certain point. It makes it kind of not a real documentary. And so the fact that Billy Evans sort of strong-armed a deal with A24 at one point where they were going to get paid sort of is antithetical to Elizabeth Holmes's claims that they don't care about money and she doesn't care about money. And she's this innocent person who just wants the truth out there. It kind of makes them look bad.

[00:09:22] [SPEAKER_01] So if that's Holmes and Evans working together to do that, then that kind of puts the lie to a lot of what Holmes is claiming. But if Holmes is just back in this terrible dynamic with a controlling man and he's doing stuff, then maybe she is the victim that she tried to portray herself at Theranos, where she's the kind of subject to this capricious, angry man.

[00:09:48] [SPEAKER_01] And, you know, just at his whims, you know, and that's sort of, I think, kind of the breakdown.

[00:09:54] [SPEAKER_00] Yeah.

[00:09:54] [SPEAKER_01] That's what they're trying to prove or disprove or whatever.

[00:09:57] [SPEAKER_00] Yeah, trying to find an excuse for her.

[00:09:59] [SPEAKER_01] I don't, I don't, I don't know, because I think it's, you could say it's trying to find an excuse, but if they don't find the excuse, and I feel like the film in my mind came down on a specific side in this. But you could say trying to find an excuse, but it's also trying to find an explanation. Is she in on it or is she not in on it? That's, that's kind of what the film is getting at. Exploring a very, very narrow sliver of this because it doesn't even get into like most of her crimes. It's not like a 60 minutes takedown.

[00:10:27] [SPEAKER_01] They're trying to figure out, is she colluding with Billy or not with some of this stuff?

[00:10:31] [SPEAKER_00] Yeah, so it's very interesting. They also bring in Amanda Seyfried, who played her to offer her opinions. And it's very easy for people to dislike Billy. She's certainly very critical of Billy. I'm not saying he doesn't deserve that criticism. He does. He does. He seems very odious.

[00:10:50] [SPEAKER_00] But to the extent that criticism of Billy equals defending Elizabeth, I don't think that's a valid point either because I think they're very much a package deal.

[00:11:02] [SPEAKER_01] I, first of all, want to say I love Amanda Seyfried now. She's, she's amazing in this. I think on the second watch, I was able to appreciate her. She actually starts, reprises the role of Elizabeth Holmes and gives performances of her that I thought were amazing. And also she's just like basically all of us at home where she's trying to figure this out. Like she gets sucked into the mystery. She gets sucked into doing it. I know there's been debates about like, oh, was some of her parts scripted? Who knows?

[00:11:31] [SPEAKER_01] I don't, I don't, I don't pretend to know. But I did, I did really enjoy her coming in and sort of being the person, being like, what is going on here? Just kind of like this whole thing is so bizarre. And I feel like, again, I said this, but I think this, as they're trying to figure out this mystery, you have Nathan Fielder trying to go through Billy to get access to Holmes. Holmes is now incarcerated. So it's harder to get access to her.

[00:11:59] [SPEAKER_01] And he's increasingly having problems getting her alone, essentially, so that he could ask her questions. Like, do you know the things that your man is doing on your behalf? You have like her likeness and image being used. Billy Evans gets power of attorney over her, even though she's still alive. You have, he's using a Twitter account in her name to post all this wild, bizarre stuff. He uses her AI likeness that anyone can do anything with.

[00:12:29] [SPEAKER_01] And, and what Nathan Fielder is trying to figure out is like, are you okay with this? Are you really okay with this? Or is this happening without your wishes and approval and, or even knowledge? And you have Billy Evans saying these wild things like, oh, she wants to build monuments of love to me. And like, that's what we're doing. And like, it's all about our relationship. And I know exactly what she's thinking, even when I don't talk to her. And you're like, this guy is really lost it.

[00:12:58] [SPEAKER_01] He's, you know, running around Texas sniffling and talking about how he's always packing because people are coming after him. And he'll release stuff if something happens to him. Like, he just seems really paranoid. But I feel like the movie had a clear answer on all of this. And it's interesting watching it the second time around. I had a very different reaction to the movie's views than I did the first time. I'm sure, I'm wondering if you did too.

[00:13:25] [SPEAKER_00] Yeah, I think so. How was your view different?

[00:13:29] [SPEAKER_01] On the first watch, I was really preoccupied with my own discomfort and constantly like feeling like I wanted to crawl out of my skin because of how bizarre everyone was behaving. And how disturbing but kind of funny it was. And it was just very reactive and just being sucked into it. I came away feeling the movie was very sympathetic to Elizabeth Holmes on some level. That maybe it raised some questions, but generally it was sympathetic.

[00:13:56] [SPEAKER_01] On the second watch, I don't know. I think it makes her out to be a liar. I think when I got past all of that initial emotional reaction and I look at what is the film actually telling me, it's telling me that she is not only – well, I find her deceptive in the film. But she's actually hand in hand with Billy Evans and approves everything he's doing.

[00:14:25] [SPEAKER_01] And she's not a manipulated woman. She's part of this manipulative couple. That's what I feel like the film –

[00:14:31] [SPEAKER_00] Yeah, maybe it's a strategy to pick a partner to do all of the bad stuff. And so you have the option of portraying yourself as smelling like a rose.

[00:14:42] [SPEAKER_01] The movie is pretty explicitly saying that by the end because the movie essentially ends with Nathan Fielder being like, maybe people like this can be in love and that's all real and there's no coercion.

[00:14:52] [SPEAKER_00] Trying to figure out how to get the right mental health treatment for yourself can feel overwhelming. Talkiatry can help. They connect you with real psychiatric care so you can actually understand what's going on and get a treatment plan that works. Talkiatry helps you move from, I know I need help, to actually having a psychiatrist who listens.

[00:15:15] [SPEAKER_02] Talkiatry is a 100% online psychiatry practice that provides comprehensive evaluations, diagnoses, and ongoing medical management for conditions like ADHD, which I have, anxiety, which I also have, depression, and more.

[00:15:29] [SPEAKER_00] Unlike therapy-only platforms, talkiatry is psychiatry. You're seeing a medical provider who can diagnose mental health conditions and prescribe medication when it's appropriate.

[00:15:41] [SPEAKER_02] All 800-plus clinicians are in network with major insurers, so you can use your existing insurance instead of paying monthly subscriptions or out-of-network costs.

[00:15:51] [SPEAKER_00] This means you can meet with a licensed psychiatrist who takes the time to understand what's going on, builds a personalized treatment plan, and supports you over time with consistent evidence-based care.

[00:16:03] [SPEAKER_02] Getting started is easy and just takes a few minutes. Complete a short online assessment, get matched with clinicians who fit your needs, and schedule your first visit in days, not months. Head to talkiatry.com slash msheet to complete the short assessment and get matched with an in-network psychiatrist in just a few minutes. That's T-A-L-K-I-A-T-R-Y dot com slash msheet to get matched in minutes. Talkiatry.com slash msheet.

[00:16:30] [SPEAKER_00] There is nothing quite like having pieces in your closet you love and knowing you can count on for any occasion, except maybe giving someone else that same feeling. This holiday season, Quince is where we are finding those pieces.

[00:16:44] [SPEAKER_01] And there are just so many to choose from, like their high-quality down outerwear and cozy cashmere gloves and scarves. And their 14-karat gold earrings and bracelets are an easy way to polish any look, making them thoughtful gifts for anyone in your life.

[00:16:58] [SPEAKER_00] Quince makes elevated, everyday essentials using premium materials like Mongolian cashmere, organic cotton, and premium stretch denim. The kind of pieces you'd be just as happy gifting as you would be to unwrap.

[00:17:12] [SPEAKER_02] And yet, everything at Quince is still priced 50-80% less than similar brands. That's because they work directly with ethical factories and cut out the middlemen, so you can give luxury-quality pieces without the luxury price tag.

[00:17:25] [SPEAKER_00] I bought their pearl snap denim western shirt in denim blue, and I wish someone had gotten that from me as a gift. I wear it all the time now, both for everyday events and for fancier things and get-togethers. I think any guy would love getting this as a Christmas gift.

[00:17:39] [SPEAKER_01] Of course, when it comes to gifting, Quince has a lot more than clothing. Think leather bags, hotel-quality bedding, chef-grade cookware, and five-star luggage. Basically, plenty of ways to find something special for everyone on your list. Give the gift of quality this holiday season. Download the Quince app for app-exclusive offers or go to quince.com. Get free shipping on your order and 365-day returns. Now available in Canada and the UK, too. And when Quince asks where you heard about them, let them know it was the murder sheet.

[00:18:08] [SPEAKER_01] It's the best way to support the show.

[00:18:11] [SPEAKER_00] Yeah.

[00:18:11] [SPEAKER_01] So to me, the film in the second half answers the question of, is she a victim? And the answer is a resounding no. She is in love with this man, and she's okay with him doing all of this. And that's it. So when you leave the theater feeling like that, then you can't really argue that it's on her side. Because it's not a good thing for her.

[00:18:38] [SPEAKER_01] It's not a good thing for her PR or whatever to be on his side. It's a good thing for her PR to be the victim, not the accomplice, or not even accomplice. I mean, what it comes off to me as is, you know, very much she's okay with this. She's good with it. But she believes the same things he does, and they're a package deal, and she wants him to do what he needs to do to help her.

[00:19:06] [SPEAKER_01] Even if those things are, frankly, self-destructive.

[00:19:09] [SPEAKER_00] Yeah. She's very manipulative. I'm curious, why do you think the whole movie starts because they agree to give Fielder and his team unfettered access to this couple during the last month or so before she goes to prison? Why would she do that? Why would she give them that kind of access?

[00:19:32] [SPEAKER_01] It's really hard. And I know Nathan Fielder himself is commenting, like, he doesn't know. And he's trying to, like, interpret why this happened. I don't know. I guess if I'm spitballing here, but I'm not really, like, I'm not really coming down on any side. I wonder if they thought that having somebody who is working with, like, A24 is very, like, prestigious, I feel. They have a lot of prestigious, well-regarded, critically acclaimed films.

[00:20:02] [SPEAKER_01] That by working with someone like that, they could influence the popular public perception of Elizabeth Holmes and pave the way for her to be seen as a martyr. For her to be seen as someone we should sympathize with and that we should care about and that we should demand that she get a commutation for her sentence or that she be released early. Or that when she comes back, give her more money.

[00:20:31] [SPEAKER_01] Let her do things in the, you know, medical space again. I wonder if this was supposed to be sort of a bit of a launching of the storming of the Bastille for Elizabeth Holmes specifically. And having a prestigious film company behind that is a great way to do that because it kind of helps launder your reputation for the public.

[00:20:57] [SPEAKER_01] And by being, by allowing such access, they're hoping that that gives the illusion of you can see everything. And what you're seeing is just a normal family going through a really tough situation and you should feel bad for them. Now, why they asked Nathan Fielder, I don't know. Because, like, if you're at all familiar with his work, which is an amazing body of work, you know, it's not he's not going to he's not the person I would go to to launder my reputation.

[00:21:27] [SPEAKER_01] Let's just say that because he's he's all about like the magic tricks and the like doing stuff that tease your perceptions. But I guess I don't know. On the on the second watch, I felt like this movie is is telling us very much that. You know, the story they're selling is not true. Now, does the movie still have some sympathy with her? I believe it does in a certain in a couple of different facets.

[00:21:56] [SPEAKER_01] But I think ultimately the question of who's the bad actor here and it's Elizabeth and Billy. It's not just Billy. Absolutely. That's what the movie. Now, Nathan Fielder talks about at the end, like how maybe that's kind of beautiful that, you know, but there's something nice about that. Maybe there is on some level, but maybe there's also not because then you have this very kind of duplicitous couple where they're. Doing all sorts of things that aren't that aren't above board.

[00:22:26] [SPEAKER_00] I wish the movie had spent more time explaining exactly what it was she did that got her in trouble.

[00:22:34] [SPEAKER_01] I mean, like on some level, just for the sake of people not getting the wrong story. Yeah, but I don't know if I would change this movie. It's not like people want every movie to be everything. There have been plenty of really good documentaries and, you know, different news magazine pieces that have broken down the whole story for us all. And we can see all of that. Does every movie need to reinvent that wheel?

[00:23:00] [SPEAKER_01] What this is about is is I think I think it's a little bit deeper than that. And it's not necessarily just about this case. It's about how we perceive lies. And again, I think people who come away sympathizing with her to the extent that they think she was victimized in this situation or that she's not really as bad as they all say. That's a skill issue on their part.

[00:23:22] [SPEAKER_01] And I mean, that's unfortunate, but I think this movie doesn't need to be 60 Minutes. And it's kind of just its own weird thing that I loved. You know, I have them suddenly be like, here's a breakdown of all the crime she's accused of just feels like that's just making it into something that it's not. Like, artistically, I strongly disagree with you.

[00:23:51] [SPEAKER_01] And I feel like Nathan Fielder is an artist. I don't see him as a journalist. He's not found by the same things that I would say a journalist. I would want them to do certain things. But he's just he's he's he's on another level. He's just a different thing.

[00:24:08] [SPEAKER_00] Well, with that said, was it more you want to say about the movie or did you want to delve into the details about what she did?

[00:24:14] [SPEAKER_01] Yeah, no, I think, you know, I think I will say one more thing about the movie here. One thing that's frightening about the movie, genuinely frightening, is. The work that we see Billy Evans doing on resurrecting Theranos and they say, oh, that's not exactly what it's a different company, but like they're resurrecting Theranos. And that's kind of frightening because it didn't go so well the first time, to put it lightly.

[00:24:42] [SPEAKER_01] And the fact that we're having now like, you know, that we're seeing them calling around, trying to get support, trying to get expertise. And then we're seeing him launch stuff. It's like that's concerning to me and also frightening to me that I feel like both Billy and Elizabeth. Occupy this kind of like Silicon Valley mindset of like, it's OK if we lie because we're changing the world and we can do whatever we want and no rules or regulations apply to us.

[00:25:10] [SPEAKER_01] And those are for losers and we should move fast and break things. And I'm like, you know, I think we should, you know, I don't know, like let's burn that kind of mentality out of our society. Let's let's kill that with fire. You know, that's not a that's not a good.

[00:25:26] [SPEAKER_01] The fact that we have a bunch of like sociopathic Silicon Valley billionaires running around, like making huge decisions that impact the world, let alone our country, who all seem to be like in some kind of like maybe different stages of like a A.I. Religious psychosis. Just that doesn't seem good. I don't think any of these people should have that level of money or power.

[00:25:48] [SPEAKER_01] I find it disturbing that like people who kind of think like them have any, you know, real power in society is it should concern and frighten everyone because they're not right. You know, like this isn't this isn't good. And they they basically see the world as their playground and they don't really care who gets hurt.

[00:26:11] [SPEAKER_01] And and that lack of remorse is really jarring, especially having just read Bad Blood and all the things that Elizabeth Holmes does. And then seeing her basically with a total straight face saying she did nothing wrong. It's like, oh, my gosh. Like. What's wrong with you?

[00:26:30] [SPEAKER_00] The ability some people have to look you right in the eye and tell a complete and total lie is something fascinating to behold. And a lot of people aren't prepared to deal with it because a lot of people tend to put themselves in the other person's place. Yeah. I wouldn't be able to do this. I would do things differently. I wouldn't be able to look someone in the eye and just completely, totally lie. Therefore, maybe she's not either.

[00:27:00] [SPEAKER_01] You know what that is the equivalent of? That's like the equivalent of like looking at a great white shark eating somebody and being like, well, I couldn't swallow someone whole in the sea and swim around underwater and detect blood from miles away. It's like, yeah, because you're not a shark. You're a human being. And I'm not saying that people like this aren't human beings. They are. I would imagine most people, they might tell some lies sometimes. Maybe some are more honest than others.

[00:27:27] [SPEAKER_01] But a lot of people, you know, value honesty and value being real. And they're going to do things differently. A lot of people might say, well, why wouldn't she? Why would if you know, wouldn't it be better for her if she just admitted the truth? Wouldn't it be better for her? Like she must really believe she's innocent because wouldn't you just cop to it at this point? And I would say no. And the film makes it very clear why. Because she's trying to do it again.

[00:27:51] [SPEAKER_01] She can't she can't say, yes, I defrauded people and then be asking for money for Theranos 2.0.

[00:27:58] [SPEAKER_00] And I'm not and I'm not sure, frankly, I don't know if I should say this. I'm not sure how much sympathy I would have for people who would be victims of a fraud of Theranos 2.0, assuming assuming it becomes a bad business or becomes fraudulent. I think if you don't do your due diligence, which should at the very least involve Googling the name Elizabeth Holmes before you invest your money, that's on you.

[00:28:27] [SPEAKER_01] Yeah, to a certain extent. I agree. The problem is like how, you know, if she's operating behind the scenes and they're able to cloak that enough and then I think, you know, people might get lured in. But but, you know, that's where the due diligence does come in and looking at who's involved in this exactly. I just think people need to get out of their own way when they're analyzing this. Don't put yourself in this position. I think most of us like have a conscience and we would feel bad if we hurt people.

[00:28:53] [SPEAKER_01] And even if we had good intentions and at some point we'd be like, well, we're sorry about that. But like others wouldn't and they don't admit wrong. And it's because there's there's benefits to that psychologically. You know, you don't want to admit that you hurt people because then you'd have to deal with it. And so you just say, I didn't do it.

[00:29:14] [SPEAKER_01] And in this case, I think there's also a practical measure of not wanting to admit wrongdoing so that she can kind of continue to kind of flit around these ideas that she still wants to make happen. I think, you know, that's that's reason enough, frankly. So, yeah. Yeah. So maybe we could talk about I mean, again, I think you pointed this out in our first episode that I thought was really insightful.

[00:29:40] [SPEAKER_01] Kevin, you pointed out that maybe if the second part of the film hinges on this idea of is Billy in control or is Elizabeth cool with this? And then the first part of the movie hinges on the idea that, like. Was she lying when she said that she had machines that could do any test of these blood tests? And like, was she did she mean to lie?

[00:30:08] [SPEAKER_01] Was she speaking in some sort of kind of unclear way that ended up getting her in trouble? But it kind of boils things down, at least as far as what the film is focusing on to be almost like if we could just boil down this phrase, we can, you know, get to her intent. And whether she was lying or whether she's just a very unclear communicator who didn't convey what she was doing very well. So I thought you and you were like that, you know, and from an artistic standpoint, that's brilliant because they do a lot with that.

[00:30:38] [SPEAKER_01] But from a purely accurate. Does that tell us like like I would hope that no one would come to a conclusion on her honesty based on this alone, given how much documentation there is again, bad blood. I could not recommend this one enough to people. It's by John Carreyrou. He was a Wall Street Journal reporter who broke this whole story open. This is a testament to the power of investigative journalism.

[00:31:08] [SPEAKER_01] He is like the goat. And when I read it this time, I really tried to document what I felt were lies and manipulations by Holmes and those around her. And I even went as far as drawing a line between ones that were pre-Sani Balwani and post-Sani Balwani. Because I think that's important.

[00:31:34] [SPEAKER_01] You would think that if Sunny Balwani was truly this Svengali, that we would see a lot of honesty from Elizabeth Holmes before he shows up. And then he comes in and then everything's ruined. And then the lies start. That's not the case. So can I go through some of these things that I found that might be helpful for people as they are analyzing this? Okay. And I'd be very curious to hear your thoughts on this.

[00:32:01] [SPEAKER_01] The book opens with November 17th, 2006. So they're doing a demonstration in Switzerland for the company Novartis. And Tim Kemp, who's a former IBM executive who is in charge of the bioinformatics at Theranos, they send in a fabricated result from this phony test from California to Switzerland. So, like, that's like the first thing that happens in the book.

[00:32:30] [SPEAKER_01] Like, they make it out. It's like smoke and mirrors. They make it out to be like, wow, we did this. But it was phony. So, like, okay, that's obviously really not good. And then you have Henry Mosley, who is the chief financial officer, who'd only been there a couple months at that point. He goes to Elizabeth and says, hey, I'm concerned about this. It really seems like we're kind of tricking the investors. And we shouldn't do that. We should only do, like, what we can actually do.

[00:33:00] [SPEAKER_01] And how do you think she reacts? How do you think he goes to Elizabeth Holmes? This is years before Sonny Balwani joined the company. She was already, I believe, in a relationship with him at this point. But he's not part of Theranos at this point. How do you think Elizabeth Holmes reacts to her CFO saying, hey, let's not lie?

[00:33:16] [SPEAKER_00] Well, I think the more appropriate question might be, how would I expect an honest, responsible person to react to that?

[00:33:23] [SPEAKER_01] You're Elizabeth Holmes here because I know you're an honest, responsible person, Kevin. You're Elizabeth Holmes. I'm your CFO. I come to you. Hey, I think we shouldn't do this. I get what we're trying to do here. We're trying to razzle-dazzle them. But there's too much dazzle and not enough real razzle. And basically we're tricking people.

[00:33:41] [SPEAKER_00] I would take it very seriously. I'd want to have the evidence. I'd want to go through it all. And I would take it extraordinarily seriously. And if the concerns were true and we were crossing lines, I would want to see that that stops immediately. If, on the other hand, I'm a bad actor and I want to continue to cross these lines, I would get angry and try to silence this person.

[00:34:06] [SPEAKER_01] He was fired immediately. He was fired immediately. Okay. This is the start of a trend within Theranos and especially spearheaded by Holmes. You have people within the company. These are people who bought into Theranos' vision that they were going to make technology that could do all of these different tests with a simple finger stick.

[00:34:30] [SPEAKER_01] So instead of going through the vein and getting a lot of blood, you could just do a drop of blood with your finger and it was going to do any test. It could be in people's homes. That was the vision. They believed in that. They believed in her. They believed in this. They went to work there. These are not outside competitors who want to damage her. They are people who have a vested interest in the company working out. And again and again, those people will say, hey, I'm concerned about this from a patient safety standpoint, from an honesty standpoint, from we're ripping off the investor's standpoint.

[00:35:00] [SPEAKER_01] And again and again, those people are driven out. The moment you nay say as far as they're concerned, which is anything critical, they're going after these people. They're firing them. They're threatening to fire them. They're pretending to fire them and then hiring them. There's again and again and again. That is not the behavior of an honest person.

[00:35:23] [SPEAKER_00] Absolutely not.

[00:35:24] [SPEAKER_01] An honest person, an honest leader wants to hear critical feedback. And maybe sometimes they don't agree with that feedback, but they don't like nuke anybody who says something like I'm concerned about this. And that's bad blood is almost like a horror novel in a way, because it's like instead of a slasher, you've got the HR department and Elizabeth Holmes and then eventually Sonny Balwani once he joins. And like someone will be like, I'm a little concerned about this. And then they'll like disappear them.

[00:35:53] [SPEAKER_01] And then it's like the next chapter is like all the survivors being like, what happened? And it's like almost kind of funny because at points you'll have people who seem like team players on Theranos who are kind of sucking up to them. But then they realize, wait a minute, what are we doing? This isn't good. And like they're just all getting picked off one by one. Again, that's not that's not like a one time thing where like she can say, well, maybe I reacted badly to this one guy. I was having a bad day. This is a pattern. This is a very, very clear pattern.

[00:36:23] [SPEAKER_01] And it's not the pattern you would expect of an honest leader.

[00:36:27] [SPEAKER_00] Excellent point.

[00:36:28] [SPEAKER_01] And it wasn't limited to Theranos employees. OK, so it was Avi Tavanian. He was a kind of a bigwig Apple alumnus who joined the board of Theranos. And he noticed that at these board meetings, Holmes would kind of like give them these really, really like optimistic revenue projections. And, oh, we're having all these deals with pharmaceutical companies. It's all going to come in. But then the revenues never came in. And he was like, don't like that.

[00:36:55] [SPEAKER_01] Don't like that we fired our CFO and don't have another one now. And he would ask more pointed questions then from there and on being like, hey, I'm not like, what are we doing here? And he felt like she never gave them a straight answer. She forced him out next. She used her relationship with the chairman of the board, Don Lucas, who is like a venture capitalist big in Silicon Valley, to kind of like, you know, oh, she Elizabeth feels like you're not a good presence at board meetings and you need to leave.

[00:37:24] [SPEAKER_01] Again, this is the man who's on the board. He's rooting for you. It's like that Tyra Banks meme. Like I was rooting for you. We were all rooting for you. And, you know, board members aren't safe. And like the guy has like millions of dollars. So he's like, I don't need the drama. I'll just leave. But like they're playing hardball with him on his way out. It's nuts. This is all before Balwani joined the company. Susan Dijiamo, sorry if I'm saying her name wrong. She was on the sales team.

[00:37:51] [SPEAKER_01] She was like always feeling like they were at these sales pitches with drug makers. She's promising them the moon. She has all these numbers and claims. And she's like, this isn't true. And then she talks to head of sales Todd Surdy and he looks into the revenue forecast and they're made up. They're just not true. Like there are all these different, you know, like tens of millions of dollars for all these deals she's doing.

[00:38:21] [SPEAKER_01] And, you know, like that's not realistic. And also a lot of those, even when there was some underlying deal, it was dependent on Theranos proving to these partners that, you know, the blood system worked. Like so it's like it's like this idea that like this is hypothetical money, but they're presenting it to people as if it's in the bank. And it's just not appropriate. And like I mean, again, like how that how does that happen by accident?

[00:38:50] [SPEAKER_00] It's hard to understand how that could happen by accident. It seems to be quite clearly has to be a deliberate choice.

[00:38:58] [SPEAKER_01] Yeah. Now, on the manipulation side, I think this is a fascinating insight into how Holmes operates. It's 30 and the guy who is like their chief counsel at some point took the went to the board with their concerns. And like the board had dismissed a lot of people for like those concerns, but they took them seriously. And then they proceeded to oust Elizabeth Holmes and they were going to remove her from the, you know, being the CEO. And she spent two hours changing their minds.

[00:39:28] [SPEAKER_01] And then she what does she do immediately? Does she go to the people who raise the concerns with the board and say, OK, I want to work with you. We make this better to address these concerns. No, she fired them like they were gone again. Like I think that the ability and someone who was there talked about like her ability to kind of sway everybody was almost a bit hypnotic where like these are people. The board members have already said there's a problem here, but they're still letting themselves be swayed by her.

[00:39:55] [SPEAKER_01] I think she's highly skilled at telling people what they want to hear.

[00:39:58] [SPEAKER_00] We certainly see that in the movie.

[00:40:01] [SPEAKER_01] Yes.

[00:40:01] [SPEAKER_00] She's a very skilled manipulator.

[00:40:03] [SPEAKER_01] The idea that she's not a good communicator, the idea that she doesn't understand what her words means is ridiculous.

[00:40:09] [SPEAKER_00] Yeah, it's absurd.

[00:40:11] [SPEAKER_01] She's highly skilled. She just wants you to know what she wants you to know. It's not it's not I don't think that's a mistake.

[00:40:17] [SPEAKER_00] If you don't have experience dealing with someone like that, either in real life or by following particular cases online, it's easy to fall for it.

[00:40:27] [SPEAKER_01] Yes. She's saying all the right things and they're just not true. So then it's September of 2009. Ramesh, Sonny Balwani joins the company. Holmes immediately opens this up with everybody by lying about their romance. They're romantically linked at this point. They're a couple. And she's telling one of the chief engineers, Tony Nugent, you know, oh, no, the relationship's over. It's done. You know, it's just strictly business. That's not true.

[00:40:54] [SPEAKER_01] Like a lot of people had a huge problem with this because people were uncomfortable with her hiring this guy and him being now this powerful executive within Theranos and they're sleeping together. One could imagine why that can blur the lines between the professional, the personal and things can go really wrong in business really fast. Right. But people were like, that's one thing. And it's another thing to be doing that and lying about it. What do you think about that?

[00:41:22] [SPEAKER_00] Yes. I would be very concerned if something like this happens where. When you bring someone in that you're having a personal relationship with, certainly we brought each other into our murder sheet company.

[00:41:39] [SPEAKER_01] No, we're the Theranos of true crime.

[00:41:41] [SPEAKER_00] You need to be fully honest with your employees, because. If you are lying about something which is so clear.

[00:41:51] [SPEAKER_01] Yeah.

[00:41:52] [SPEAKER_00] What else are you lying about? That's what I would be wondering. If they can't even be honest with me about this, what else are they deceiving you?

[00:42:00] [SPEAKER_01] Because if you're like, yeah, we are a couple, then people can decide, well, maybe this doesn't seem super professional, so I don't want to work here. Like they can make their own choice. And at least you're being honest about it, even if there are problems from that approach. But like in this, it's like denying people the opportunity to make that call almost. They there's a whole. So in 2009, Pfizer had had some kind of trial run with Theranos where they were comparing their results with this like, you know, so they were like doing a validation study in Tennessee.

[00:42:28] [SPEAKER_01] And Pfizer nixed it because they felt like they just they weren't like showing the links that they thought were going to just, you know, there were mechanical failures or all these problems. But so Pfizer is like, I'm out.

[00:42:40] [SPEAKER_01] And that's going to become important later, because as far as as far as people, investors later on knew, you know, Elizabeth Holmes is showing all these people reports with Pfizer's logo on it, which made it look like Pfizer was approving of their technology when they actually dumped them.

[00:43:00] [SPEAKER_01] And it turned out Elizabeth Holmes herself put that logo on that paperwork, even though, you know, that wasn't at all something Pfizer was interested in continuing with them. So I thought that was pretty bizarre. And again, like she admitted that at trial and she acknowledged that that was probably not the right thing to do, but she didn't have any ill intent by it. But if you're showing those things to investors, what what else could the intent be other than we're being validated by Pfizer?

[00:43:30] [SPEAKER_01] What do you think about that?

[00:43:32] [SPEAKER_00] It's very clear what what is what is going on. And when you're asking these these questions, they answer themselves. It's self-evident that there was an intentional intent, also an intentional intent, an intentional desire, an intentional choice to deceive.

[00:43:51] [SPEAKER_01] So like sometimes like stuff happens and like maybe one or two things can happen to make someone look bad. Right. And that doesn't necessarily add up to like, oh, they're totally dishonest. It may be like, OK, well, that, you know, that wasn't the right choice. But at some point, folks, when there's smoke, there's fire here and the room is on fire. Forget the smoke. I mean, like there's just so much going on that she's doing that is like very much not the right thing to do.

[00:44:17] [SPEAKER_01] In January 2010, Theranos went to Walgreens and said, we develop these little devices that are capable of running any blood test from just a couple of drops from your finger. And it's in real time. And it's like half the cost of the traditional labs. That wasn't true. Their technology didn't work. Let me tell you how much their technology. They had different machines. Right. They had the Edison. They had the Minilab.

[00:44:45] [SPEAKER_01] What they ended up having to do is like most of their machines were so unreliable or didn't do what they said they were going to do. They would bring in this third party technology and then put in these highly diluted blood samples to those and get results from them. And, you know, a lot of these the board didn't even know they were doing this. The board thought like we're dealing with our own Theranos technology, but they're buying it from these external third party companies, these third party analyzers.

[00:45:13] [SPEAKER_01] And I mean, like it's just not working like their stuff's not working. Her goals were totally unrealistic. Her goal of trying to get so much from a single drop of blood just was the mechanics of that and how you do that was so complicated and hard to do. So what Elizabeth Holmes is primary problem, I think, is throughout a lot of this is she wants the image of being Steve Jobs and revolutionizing everything.

[00:45:41] [SPEAKER_01] But the technology was just not working. And instead of just making realistic goals and saying, OK, well, maybe this isn't going to be a sexy consumer product in every home, but maybe we can add value here and shifting to something more realistic. She just kept on saying, no, we have to keep going when it's like there's no path forward here. So eventually it just became about cutting corners and covering up instead of actually getting something to work. Does that make sense?

[00:46:11] [SPEAKER_00] That makes sense.

[00:46:12] [SPEAKER_01] Anyways. So August 24th, 2010, they promise Walgreens they're going to put these Theranos readers into a number of Walgreens stores no later than the middle of 2011. Yeah. And they're going to be able to get their blood tested with a prick of the finger and then they're going to get the results in under an hour and they're getting all this money with this stuff. I mean, it's just they tell them they have a commercially ready laboratory and all these different blood tests that they're doing.

[00:46:42] [SPEAKER_01] And the reality was they had a research and development lab. And and that and that was what they had. Like they also like they gave the list and they couldn't even do half of those tests. Like so the way the blood tests work is that there are different types of techniques that you do for different tests. They're not all the same. And so it's very complicated to put that all into one machine. And, you know, but they were promising to do it.

[00:47:09] [SPEAKER_01] You know, a lot of this gets at the central question of the first half of the film, which is like the machine can do any test. And she's like, oh, because it's calling it from the cloud and they could hypothetically do the test if you were. The thing is, like, that's not even true. These machines were just not working. They were often getting really, really inconsistent results, giving bad results. They weren't able to, like, replicate what they were doing, like totally antithetical to a lot of like just scientific principles of like how to run a lab.

[00:47:39] [SPEAKER_01] They brought in this guy named Kevin, actually another fellow Kevin, Kevin Hunter. Walgreens brought him in. He was like a lab expert. He had his own lab. And they were like, we want you to evaluate what these Theranos people are telling us. And, you know, he basically says, well, OK, you know, I'd like to see your lab. The answer is no. And they say, well, it's because like all this corporate espionage and our competitors. But like, OK, but you're working with Walgreens. So what's going on there?

[00:48:08] [SPEAKER_01] And then. He wanted them to demonstrate a live vitamin D test on their device. He wanted his blood and some of his colleagues blood tested on there, and then they get it tested again at Stanford Hospital. In the evening and sort of compare the results. And they were like, oh, we got too little notice, even though like he made it. He like had requested it weeks earlier. And it's like, you know, he's he's like looking for the facts, not vibes.

[00:48:35] [SPEAKER_01] So he actually is like, why don't we embed someone from Walgreens in Theranos just to make sure this is all great? And they're like, no. Like. If they were really if she was really just delusional and thought all this stuff worked and it didn't, you would almost think that she'd be more willing to be open with people and like, sure, come see the magic. And then it's like, oh, no, this is she's acting.

[00:48:58] [SPEAKER_00] She's acting like she has something to hide.

[00:49:00] [SPEAKER_01] Yes. You like if I'm just nuts and I'm like, guys, like I've invented a magic portal to the stars. Wouldn't I be excited to show you that? And you'd be like, on you, this isn't doing anything. Oh, no, I'm in the stars, Kevin. Like, why are you hiding it? They had all these excuses all the time about corporate espionage, by the way. And I think it was mostly just to hide that nothing was working.

[00:49:25] [SPEAKER_00] Yeah, I think that's clear.

[00:49:27] [SPEAKER_01] So they always claimed that their technology, you know, where they did like, you know, they were doing this clinical trial work for pharmaceuticals. And all these documents showed like with the stamps of the companies on them show that it was working. And also that they had this thing from Johns Hopkins University's medical school, a review of the technology commissioned by Johns Hopkins. And. And.

[00:49:52] [SPEAKER_01] Kevin Hunter got his hands on that two page document and he said it was dated April 27th, 2010. So that was supposed to be like one of these things that's like a ringing endorsement by some really legitimate people. But the whole report just said, you know, we didn't do any independent verification of our own. And this is in no way an endorsement of the product. So it's like stuff that they're acting like is like proves they're good isn't even saying that like it. Yeah.

[00:50:18] [SPEAKER_01] She was telling Safeway and Walgreens the technology could perform hundreds of tests, some small blood samples. And. They could, you know, the Edison system at least could only do immuno essays, which is a type of test where they're taking antibodies and measuring different substances in the blood. And that's not the only type of blood test there is, but she's claiming, no, we can do like all this different stuff.

[00:50:41] [SPEAKER_00] So it's not an isolated thing. There is a constant pattern of. Efforts to deceive and or hide.

[00:50:50] [SPEAKER_01] There's text between Balwani and Holmes talking about how they're running circles around and manipulating inspectors who came in to see their lab. That came out at trial. Like if people come to inspect our house for what they do, a podcast inspection and you and I are sitting here texting each other like let's manipulate that. I'm like.

[00:51:11] [SPEAKER_00] That's not a good sign.

[00:51:13] [SPEAKER_01] It really isn't. They played all these regulatory games where they were like not getting what they were supposed to. I mean, like they they were telling people they were on the battlefield with the military and the military was using them and there was a military contract. That wasn't true. They tried to get one with General James Mattis and it fell apart because Lieutenant Colonel David Shoemaker was like, hey. You need certain like different regulatory approvals to make this happen. And in Holmes went after him.

[00:51:42] [SPEAKER_01] She sent an angry email to Mattis, who then got mad about it to Mattis's credit. He got mad about it. He sent a mean email. But at least at the end, like he heard out Shoemaker and was like, oh, OK, yeah, I guess we do have to do those things, even though I'm disappointed. I thought he came off at least like he was willing to listen to reason in fairness to him.

[00:52:03] [SPEAKER_01] But like, you know, it was very clear that she was gunning for this guy who was just doing his job to protect the troops and not put some weird technology on them that was, you know, not supposed to be there. But they worked out a deal where she could still like do some kind of like like less ambitious stuff with the military. And they never followed up on it because they didn't want to have any oversight. Like, it's very clear. Like, they they you know, there was lies on the patents.

[00:52:32] [SPEAKER_01] Ian Gibbons, one of the scientists, one of the early scientists at Theranos, he unfortunately got so depressed and stressed out at work. Over a lawsuit involving Theranos, and he was having his wife, who is an attorney, look at these patents and he was telling her, yeah, like Elizabeth Holmes's name is on the patents, but she had really minimal contributions. And his wife was telling him, well, that could be really bad for, you know, if that comes out essentially for her and for Theranos's claims.

[00:53:00] [SPEAKER_01] But unfortunately, this gentleman ended up dying by suicide in the midst of all of this. And the way Theranos and Elizabeth Holmes in particular reacted to that by kind of so cold, like his grieving widow calls him, says he's dead. He, you know, I'm like, I just want you to know. And they're like, make sure you get us his laptop. I mean, this is like, you know, very, very cold, says something really bad about the whole thing.

[00:53:26] [SPEAKER_01] They're all this stuff where like their advertising team, like their advertising team is saying, hey, we're making some like kind of intense claims about accuracy and doing 800 tests on one drop of blood. And, you know, they're like, no, no, no, that's all good. And the last minute they kind of ended up taking a lot of that back on legal advice, I think. You know, I mean, gosh, I just like there are just so many lies. They lied about a lot of the big partnerships they had.

[00:53:54] [SPEAKER_01] And, you know, like they lie. They were fudging results in the lab. They were they were not doing proper. I mean, I don't understand all the science. Ultimately, a big lie was the idea that they could do all these different tests simultaneously on a single finger stick. In reality, they were often taking more blood than that and putting it on third party machines. They weren't doing anything that they were saying they were going to do that would have been so innovative.

[00:54:20] [SPEAKER_01] Had they been able to do what they claimed, it would have been a really big deal and like completely groundbreaking. But they weren't doing that. They were basically doing things like throwing quality control out the window, throwing anybody who said anything about the whole situation out the window, you know, trying to get people to lie for them.

[00:54:38] [SPEAKER_01] When when John Carreyrou ultimately came out with his first stories about this and sort of broke the news, Holmes went to the Wall Street Journal's like big conference, ironically, and proceeded to just lie. She said, no, like this was her response to this reporting. She said that the proprietary devices, you know. You know, he was writing about Edison's and oh, we don't even use those anymore. That wasn't true.

[00:55:07] [SPEAKER_01] She said, oh, you know, the proficiency testing is totally legal and has the blessing of all the regulators. That wasn't true. She categorically denied Theranos was diluting the finger stick samples before running them on commercial machines. That's what they were doing. She just got up and lied like she just lied about everything. Now, like it was like all these points were just lies. She told Walgreens, Safeway and investors the company was profitable.

[00:55:37] [SPEAKER_01] The reality is they lost money every year of their existence. Fifteen years. They never ended up working with the military despite their claims. Lisa Peterson was the investment manager for the DeVos family office. That's Betsy DeVos, the former secretary of education. And they ended up investing one million dollars in Theranos in 2014. And this is like an example of how they would deal with the investors. And this is what she was, you know, the investor claims that she was ultimately busted with.

[00:56:05] [SPEAKER_01] You know, she's she says Holmes told her Theranos only uses its own blood analyzers. Not true. And she ended up seeing the Pfizer report and thinking that meant Pfizer endorsed them. Not true. And was told that they had a projected revenue at that point of like one hundred and forty million dollars. Now, Carrie Rue in his book makes it clear that some investors did their due diligence and others didn't.

[00:56:31] [SPEAKER_01] Some people just kind of were like, take my money, you know, and that those people kind of like probably had it coming. I mean, he doesn't say that, but I'm saying that. But then others did their due diligence at Brian Grossman. He was a big investor. He was with PFM Health Service Sciences and invested 96 million in 2014. He really demanded to see the lab. He wanted to be looking at all this, but they just deceived him. They just didn't tell him about the third party machines. They didn't tell him the truth.

[00:57:00] [SPEAKER_01] So there were different things. I mean, to be fair. These are some counterclaims from the man who was ultimately her lead defense attorney at trial, Kevin Downey.

[00:57:15] [SPEAKER_00] A lot of Kevins in this case.

[00:57:17] [SPEAKER_01] It's the abundance of Kevins. They Kevin Downey said, no, she didn't lie to Walgreens and Safeway in 2010. She was just telling them what her scientists were saying. What do you think about that?

[00:57:34] [SPEAKER_00] That's obviously an excuse. I don't find that very credible because it sounds like a lot of the people on her team had doubts.

[00:57:42] [SPEAKER_01] Oh, and I'm going to conclude with some of that because I think it also says something about her character. But yes, scientists were lying to her to trick her, I guess, to make her look bad.

[00:57:51] [SPEAKER_00] It's always someone else who's the bad guy and she's just the victim. She's the innocent dupe.

[00:57:56] [SPEAKER_01] She's the innocent dupe in the affair.

[00:57:57] [SPEAKER_00] Whether it was the scientists or Billy.

[00:57:59] [SPEAKER_01] Who's the common denominator here? Billy.

[00:58:01] Yeah.

[00:58:02] [SPEAKER_00] Billy.

[00:58:02] [SPEAKER_01] Frickin' Billy. And yeah, she did put these logos on these documents. But, you know, she thought they were in a partnership and she would probably have done it differently now. Okay, good to know. Also, they used third-party machines because they were originally going to do the mini lab machines that they had in Theranos at Walgreens. But then they didn't get, you know, there was no FDA approval. So Walgreens wanted to do, you know, they wanted to do more of a central lab model for Walgreens.

[00:58:28] [SPEAKER_01] But that doesn't explain why she was only showing the Theranos devices to investors and acting like that was what they had. You have, you know, like, you know, it turned out that they also had another thing from GlaxoSmithKline, sort of a report on what they were doing. And they were sending that around to investors and they had taken out all the negative paragraphs where it was talking about, like, bad things. And she wouldn't admit to changing that. But it's like they were, like, they were lying.

[00:59:00] [SPEAKER_01] In writing, she talks about distracting investors, like, don't let anyone know that we're dropping some of the tests on the finger stick because we can't do them. Jeff Schenck, one of the prosecutors, said that if they wanted to do an honest pitch, it would be after after 10 years. All we have is an unreliable device that could do a handful of blood tests. And they wouldn't have gotten any investments on that because other people had better devices that could already do that. So. Horrible. There's so many lies.

[00:59:30] [SPEAKER_01] She's very much connected to so many of these lies. This idea that Sonny is behind all of it. So at trial, this was and I'm curious about what you think about this, Kevin, because I want to be careful. I mean, this is a sensitive issue and I think things can be nuanced. But Sonny Balwani was her boyfriend and he was also charged in this case and went to prison over it. He was, by all accounts, a huge bully, like a really mean guy.

[00:59:58] [SPEAKER_01] He would go after people and treat them horribly and was, you know, I felt like her kind of henchman, like go break that guy's legs kind of thing. Not literally, but like emotionally, maybe. And what they tried to do at trial was essentially what what Carrie Rue calls a Svengali defense. Balwani is to blame for pretty much everything.

[01:00:24] [SPEAKER_01] They accused him of perpetuating intimate partner violence on Holmes and abusing her, raping her and threatening and coercing her. And. This also forced the judge to sever the cases, by the way. So that happened legally as a result of this.

[01:00:43] [SPEAKER_01] But here are some things that Bad Blood points out that just an often a forensic expert with PricewaterhouseCoopers reviewed like their tax and they didn't really show Balwani dominating her. Witnesses came forward and said she had the final word over him. He and the text is often actually the voice of reason of like we shouldn't do this. Stop overexposing yourself in the press. Don't say stuff like this in the press. You're exaggerating what the machines can do. Like, stop.

[01:01:11] [SPEAKER_01] Like, like she's the one doing that and being like ignoring him. You know, Balwani is like, stop, stop saying this. And she won't. People testify like she never deferred to Balwani. I don't know. She even testified when Holmes got up on the stand, which she did, that Balwani did not control her interactions with investors, journalists and Walgreens and other various things.

[01:01:36] [SPEAKER_01] Robert Leish, the lead prosecutor, broke out texts where Balwani was telling her about problems in the lab when she was claiming she hadn't been aware of those until the inspection, which was like, again, caught in a lie on the stand. What do you make of these claims of abuse in the terms of like, you know, bringing that out as far as a legal defense here?

[01:01:57] [SPEAKER_00] You do have to be careful when you talk about things like this, because we live in a world where a lot of men do do their best to control women. There's a lot of women who are victims of controlling men. A lot of men who exert coercive control over the women in their lives. That is a very real thing.

[01:02:22] [SPEAKER_00] But with that said, it's also important to remember that it can be a convenient excuse or strategy for someone who is good at manipulating themselves and who wants to get the benefit of having used some noxious strategies and behaviors without being in a position to take personal responsibility for it.

[01:02:45] [SPEAKER_01] I thought that Kariru kind of his favorite prosecutor was John Bostick. He's like, he should have run the whole case like he was a Bostick fan. And Bostick said, you know, jurors, you can be sympathetic to her if you feel like she went through this. But she herself admits he didn't control her actions in this matter. And witnesses say he didn't control her actions in this matter. And the texts don't indicate that he controlled her actions in this matter. You need to look at what she was accused of and nothing else. And I agree with that.

[01:03:14] [SPEAKER_01] I think there's certain cases, like cases where a woman is claiming self-defense from killing or harming an abusive partner or cases where someone is accused of killing or harming someone who they say was sexually trafficking them, where you do have to look at this. Source of control, it's very much a real thing. And did it play a role here? I'm not going to I'm not going to say whether or not I believe the claims about Balwani are lies. I think Elizabeth Holmes is a liar.

[01:03:42] [SPEAKER_01] I think she does not care about telling the truth or being honest. But someone can do that and still be a victim of this kind of abuse. Balwani, by all accounts, was a very unpleasant man who really was a bully. Is it possible that he also bullied someone he was in a relationship with? Perhaps, yes. But am I going to say that's definitely the truth? No. Do I think that it has pretty much no bearing on what happened here? Yes.

[01:04:09] [SPEAKER_01] Because many of her lies predate Balwani getting involved. So if that is true, that that happened to her, that's obviously horrible. And we can, I think, sympathize and condemn that as a separate issue. But even by her own account, this was not influencing her in her behavior towards these investors. And that is what the crime is. Right.

[01:04:38] [SPEAKER_01] And frankly, I see it somewhat cynically as an attempt to gain sympathy with the jury and put all the blame on someone else and not take any accountability for her own role in this. You can have something bad be happening to you or happen to you and still hurt other people, you know. And there just doesn't seem to be any sort of acknowledgement. But also notice what I said about using this like aggressive man to go after people and then blaming him for what happens. Does that sound familiar? Yeah.

[01:05:08] [SPEAKER_01] You can see everything watchers, right? Yeah, Billy. Right. If I were Billy, I'd be like, oh, man, like am I being set up? Because that seems to be the move. People say, well, Billy's younger than her. But this guy, Sonny Balwani, was like 20 years older than her. And like there's different dynamics there. And I'm like, yeah, but like also people are individuals. You and I have a pretty substantial age gap, right? Yes. And we're in a relationship.

[01:05:37] [SPEAKER_01] We're married. We're married. We're in a relationship. It's casual.

[01:05:43] [SPEAKER_00] We're married.

[01:05:43] [SPEAKER_01] We're very much wed. That's my husband. And I don't I don't feel like you have power over. I can feel like we're equals, you know? I mean, I don't know. Kevin's like, good. My manipulations have worked. I mean, like it's just people people are individuals. And sometimes I feel like people freak out about like, I don't know, that kind of thing. And yes, if you're dealing with like a 40 year old and like an 18 year old, that's different. But if everyone involved is like an adult. Now, it's not she seemed to get with him. Pretty early.

[01:06:14] [SPEAKER_01] And I mean, that does concern me. Right. Because I think they got together when she was like dropped out of Stanford, which I want to say was her sophomore year. So like, is that yeah. Does that make me give the side eye? It does, actually. Do I think that that excuses the lies she told as an individual? And do I think that Sonny Balwani is the reason, the sole reason that Theranos went off the rails? No, I don't. I really don't. But I mean, it's definitely something to note.

[01:06:41] [SPEAKER_01] So one of the last things I wanted to really talk about was. Was just the treatment of the whistleblowers. I alluded to this at the beginning. The people who really kind of stick out to me regarding this are Tyler Schultz, Erica Chung and Adam Rosendorf. And those were people who worked in the lab. Adam Rosendorf was, I believe, the lab director.

[01:07:09] [SPEAKER_01] And the other two were like lab associates. It came out at trial, but like Theranos spent like thousands of dollars hiring private investigators to like stalk people and like track them as they got wind that they were starting to go to the press, namely John Kerry Rue. The lengths they took to lie and obfuscate and make it out so that these people were feeling like they were going to be sued for speaking the truth to a journalist.

[01:07:38] [SPEAKER_01] Like it's horrible. And what primarily seemed to motivate these people was concerns that this technology was going to hurt somebody and give them the wrong result. Like. Is that if someone's like doing that when when when someone hires a bunch of scary lawyers to threaten to sue people for exercising their free speech, Kevin, is that a sign of being honest or deceptive?

[01:08:02] [SPEAKER_00] That's a sign of being deceptive is also a sign of weakness and fear.

[01:08:06] [SPEAKER_01] You and I have gotten legal threats from people. Do you want to talk about that?

[01:08:11] [SPEAKER_00] To some extent, sure. There is people who've indicated that they don't like what we say. Perhaps the most notable example that comes to mind is a gentleman convicted of murder up in Michigan. And he has repeatedly said he's he doesn't like what we're saying and we're all wrong and he's going to sue us out of existence. Although when we press him, he doesn't even cite mistakes. That's the cause. Yeah. Yeah. So.

[01:08:39] [SPEAKER_00] And when you get threats like this, it's usually, as I say, it's a sign of weakness.

[01:08:43] [SPEAKER_01] I have to think of when we were coming out with our book on the Delphine murders case, an attorney in Indiana, Kara Weinecke, sent an email to our publisher.

[01:08:50] [SPEAKER_00] She said, I want to read the book so I can decide whether or not.

[01:08:54] [SPEAKER_01] Oh, I want to get the book so I can leak it to my sad YouTube friends. Yeah, that was it was obviously a ploy. But it's like I think there are unscrupulous attorneys and there are unscrupulous people who try to use this stuff as a way to threaten and shut people up. And it's just important to remember that, like, the truth is a great defense in any sort of libel case. And like, don't don't let people like that bully you, because, I mean, what they're trying to do is scare you and oftentimes they have absolutely no leg to stand on.

[01:09:22] [SPEAKER_01] So that that was something that unfortunately happened here. All of these people who went to Carrie Rue, I mean, there was discussions about how he and Tyler were like meeting and somehow Theranos knew about it, even though neither of them had told somebody. So obviously they were having them tailed. Like, that's nuts. Maybe put that energy into like fixing your freaking broken machines instead of like trying to harass people. People like Tyler, people like Erica, people like Adam, they tried to do things internally first. They tried to go to Holmes and reason with her and say, here's what's going wrong.

[01:09:51] [SPEAKER_01] Help us fix this. And she would just sick Sonny Bahwani on them. And then they would go to the outside for help and then they would go even further and be like doing all sorts of things to them. It's not right. How Elizabeth Holmes treated people in this situation was abhorrent. At trial, she basically said, I'm sorry I tried to do my dream too fast. That's not an apology. No. She should be apologizing.

[01:10:18] [SPEAKER_01] A woman got like an indication that she had miscarried when her baby was healthy. Someone got an indication they were probably going to get prostate cancer when they weren't. People got like someone had to spend $3,000 going to the emergency room and doing a bunch of tests because it seemed like she was going to get a stroke. Real people got screwed over by Theranos's shoddy technology. Okay. And yeah. And I don't think she has any remorse about it. I really don't.

[01:10:45] [SPEAKER_01] I could understand it if she came out and said, guys, I tried to do this when I was really young. Who isn't a mess in their 20s? Like I certainly was. I'm really sorry. I did a lot of things wrong. I wish I could go back and redo it. I had good intentions in the beginning, but I obviously got so wrapped up in winning that I forgot the important thing, which is to be like really accurate and safe. And I really regret it. And I'm sorry. Like, I think all of us could almost relate to that in a way, or at least kind of like that doesn't excuse the behavior.

[01:11:14] [SPEAKER_01] But I think we could say like that's someone who made a lot of really bad choices. But if you're going around and saying, let me do it again. Round two, baby. Like, I don't even know what to say to that, given the depth of deception, the web of lies that she wove and how much she sought to benefit from it. But I want to talk, just to conclude, just about a couple of things that came up in the movie that struck me as interesting, given stuff that I found in the book, if that's OK, Kevin.

[01:11:43] [SPEAKER_00] Please do.

[01:11:44] [SPEAKER_01] OK. So I thought this was interesting. How did you feel like the film, at least as far as like Elizabeth Holmes is saying, what do you feel like she was trying to say in the film, you can see everything about her relationship with money?

[01:11:57] [SPEAKER_00] She seemed to indicate the money was very unimportant to her. OK. She didn't really care about money. And so I'm sure there's nothing you're going to say that contradicts that in any way.

[01:12:08] [SPEAKER_01] In John Kerry Rue's book, he recounts a Christmas dinner at the Holmes household where her father, Chris, floats a paper airplane over to her with the letters Ph.D. written on it. And she responds, quote, no, dad, I'm not interested in getting a Ph.D. I want to make money. Now, listen, people can change their minds. People can change and grow and then say, actually, money's not as important. So I'm not saying that's a gotcha, but it's notable.

[01:12:36] [SPEAKER_01] Now, in the film, do you recall what she says about all of the press she did and how she feels about that now?

[01:12:41] [SPEAKER_00] She was taking advantage of it, wasn't she?

[01:12:43] [SPEAKER_01] Yeah, she's kind of implying that. And she's sort of saying, I did too much. Everyone was pushing me to do more press and I didn't, you know, but that's not really me. But it ended up hurting me by overexposing me. There's literally texts from Sunny Balwani, supposedly her Svengali being like, you're doing too much press. Other people think you're doing too much press. Stop doing so much press. You're overexposing yourself. And her being like, whatever. She seemed excited about the press. And that's like understandable. You can understand that, like being excited about that.

[01:13:12] [SPEAKER_01] At some point, the media started treating her like she was this innovative Steve Jobs person, which is exactly what she always wanted. Problem was the technology didn't live up to the hype. The problem is the technology was actively failing and she was covering it up. Maybe there were external pressures and maybe she felt I have to do this. I'm not saying it was like completely her choice, but like she does not come off in any of this as reluctant to be treated like this visionary. And in fact, scientists within the company would go to her and say, can you actually like run

[01:13:42] [SPEAKER_01] by what you're going to say by us first? So like we can tell you if you're over exaggerating the claims. Like people, people who were like her toadies on the inside of the company were like, yeah, she exaggerates a lot. And like they were like, can we just do this? And she's like basically like, no, like absolutely not. Like you'd think like someone who cared about telling the truth would be like, oh, sure. Sorry if I said something wrong. Right. I mean, am I crazy?

[01:14:08] [SPEAKER_00] You're not crazy.

[01:14:10] [SPEAKER_01] I thought it was funny. In the documentary, Billy and Elizabeth start freaking out at one point because they say the documentarians are ruining their Wi-Fi. They're like, oh, you know, the monitors are sucking up all the Wi-Fi in the house. And like Nathan Fielder's like very incredulous about this. And when the machines wouldn't work at Theranos, Sonny Balwani would always blame the wireless connection. And, you know, actually, he was actually right in some instances. That was a problem. But sometimes it would be other things. But yeah, I just thought that was kind of a fun flashback.

[01:14:41] [SPEAKER_01] There was a lot of paranoia within. You can see everything. Do you want to talk about some of Billy's paranoia in the second half of the film?

[01:14:50] [SPEAKER_00] It gets pretty dire because he indicates he carries a gun on him 24-7 and seems to indicate that if he wanted to, he could put a contract out on someone's life. That was my interpretation of that moment.

[01:15:07] [SPEAKER_01] The murder sheet forgot to mention that whole thing because that's like the closest he comes to saying like. He talks about how he has vengeance in his heart. He's going to ruin all these people's lives who have wronged them, including people who made like the dropout for Hulu. He and like almost it almost gets murdery at one point. I don't know if he doesn't really quite go that far, but like it's it's frightening. He talks about how he's, you know, packing constantly, strapped constantly. And it's like not because like he just wants to have his gun.

[01:15:36] [SPEAKER_01] Like some people do that. I'm not saying that they're wrong or paranoid, but like he's indicating like people in cars are following him. Like and they're coming for him and he's going to have a package released with all this information if he doesn't make it out like it's totally wild. There was a lot of paranoia at Theranos, too. It was sort of like the Nixon administration of startups where there was a lot of internal paranoia. People felt like people were spying on them and she encouraged them all to kind of be

[01:16:06] [SPEAKER_01] siloed and be enemies. And like it wasn't a good working environment. And so there's that. And then there is the fact that there was also paranoia about the competition. So Quest Diagnostics and Laboratory Corporation of America, they were like, they're spying on us. They're going to come get us. They're they're going to you know, they're going to do something to us. And it's all like all this intrigue and fear over that.

[01:16:37] [SPEAKER_01] And I thought this was interesting. At one point, Billy Evans says to Nathan, like, oh, like Nathan's like, why would why would John Kerry essentially like just come and take her down for no reason? And Evans says, well, she was he was put on to her by the competition. And. What I believe he means there is Richard Fuse was a guy who is in a patent dispute with

[01:17:02] [SPEAKER_01] with Elizabeth Holmes, and he's like a bizarre figure who's like done stuff across like espionage and business. But. Like. Recently, Billy Evans actually went after Carrie Rue on Twitter about this and was sort of saying the same thing of like, oh, this is your source and this is what, you know, basically he's accusing Carrie Rue of doing guilt by association against Elizabeth for some bizarre things she's involved in that he's involved in.

[01:17:30] [SPEAKER_01] And he says, your story started with Richard Fuse. You defended his credibility. He calls you a friend. And then. Oh, and this account that says it's Richard Fuse is loves Hitler. OK, so, you know, why is your standard just apply to us? And I just want to be very clear, like. Richard Fuse is portrayed in Carrie Rue's book as like. A pretty complicated. I would say even like he's portrayed somewhat negatively at times where you have his own family saying he's a megalomaniac.

[01:17:59] [SPEAKER_01] It's it's sympathetic at times, but other times it's not particularly sympathetic, like it feels pretty down the middle. It doesn't feel like source greasing. How would you expect if Carrie Rue was really like this guy was behind everything and was Carrie Rue's doing it all for him? How would you expect a Richard Fuse to be described in a book like this?

[01:18:16] [SPEAKER_00] I would expect him to be described in a very flattering way. This guy's a god walking amongst us. He's a he's a hero. He strode into the room like a mighty warrior. Things like that.

[01:18:30] [SPEAKER_01] Now, journalists try to disguise this sometimes. But if you want to know who a journalist sources are and say like a big political book, you know, if Jared Kushner strides into the room with a big idea and like he's a handsome guy in a suit, that's the source. OK, because it's called source greasing. You suck up to your sources who gave you everything and you make them look reasonable and everyone else look like an idiot. That's the thing that happens. Now, a good journalist will try to minimize that because you don't want to just be sucking up to your sources. You want to be honest.

[01:19:00] [SPEAKER_01] But I mean, I don't think anything like that is happening in Bad Blood whatsoever. And also, it's way more complicated than saying it started with Richard Fuse. This is what happened. And this is, again, like I literally tweeted back at this because I got so annoyed. So I'm trying to get into it with Billy Evans on Twitter over this. But, you know. They don't name the competition, but I'm pretty sure they're talking about Fuse in Bad Blood.

[01:19:26] [SPEAKER_01] It comes out that Adam Clapper, a pathologist who had the pathology blog, which was like a small blog. He connected with the Fuses, with Phyllis Gardner, who was an academic who is skeptical of Holmes, and Rochelle Gibbons. And they basically went to Clapper. And Clapper was like, oh, you guys should talk to Kerry Rue because he's, you know, he's an investigative journalist. And so, like, he was talking to all these people at the same time. It wasn't the Fuses alone.

[01:19:56] [SPEAKER_01] It just seems ridiculous. Like, you know, it seems ridiculous and stupid rewriting of history and attack on reporting. But again, these people don't care about the truth. Sorry, I just wanted to go into that because I'm just like, as a reporter, that just ticks me off. It's like, I don't. I the attacks on Kerry Rue's credibility by Evans are just rich, you know, because it's like, seriously. Richard Fuse didn't break into Theranos and make all the machines not work and then tell investors that they did. Like, that's not what happened.

[01:20:24] [SPEAKER_01] But anyways, they're very paranoid of the competition. Even Chris Holmes at one point is saying, oh, there was a whole scramble over her patents after this all happened. And my understanding is, like, the Fortress Investment Group, which had given them a loan in, like, late 2017, ended up getting a lot of their patents. I don't know what happened after that, but the technology wasn't working. That's fundamentally what it's about. I thought it was also ironic. This comes up in the book.

[01:20:50] [SPEAKER_01] But once John Carreyrou started digging into it, Sonny Balwani and Elizabeth Holmes would, like, lead their staff in a chant. I'm going to curse here. So apologies. Fuck you, Carreyrou. Right? They'd chant this. So I thought it was rich in you can see everything where they're like, oh, like, this is Elizabeth Holmes account is telling people to go fuck themselves on Twitter. That doesn't sound like her. It's like, yeah, it doesn't sound like her in the movie. But I mean, she didn't seem to have a problem with that then.

[01:21:20] [SPEAKER_01] I don't know. What do you think about any of this?

[01:21:23] [SPEAKER_00] Yeah, I ultimately it doesn't even matter to me if someone got a tip to do a negative story about a business from a competitor. What matters to me is whether or not the story is true.

[01:21:39] [SPEAKER_01] Exactly.

[01:21:40] [SPEAKER_00] And in this instance, obviously, all of the negative things people were saying about Ms. Holmes were in fact true. And that goes a long way towards explaining why she is where she is now, namely incarcerated.

[01:21:54] [SPEAKER_01] Like, I mean, Billy's dad was a weirdo at trial. So Billy's dad is William L. Evans senior. You know, he's Billy's father. And he's the head. He's the head of the Evans Hotels, I guess, company. They have like a they're rich people who run a hospitality business. And he showed up at the trial and was like hovering around the reporters and like eavesdropping on people they felt wearing a baseball cap and a puffer jacket. And they're like, who is this guy? And he's like, my name's Hanson.

[01:22:23] [SPEAKER_01] I'm just a concerned citizen. And then you're for all, you know, for all they're not married, I guess. But like he's basically her father in law. Like how bizarre are these people? They're just bizarre people. In my opinion. One thing people kind of criticized, not criticized, but I understood. They're like, Anya, you're you're falling for it because I expressed sympathy in our first episode with her getting pregnant and then having to leave the baby so quickly.

[01:22:53] [SPEAKER_01] And they were like, you know, pointing out that like she seemingly got pregnant both times to like to delay the legal process. It looks like to people. And I'm going to say like, I very much buy that she would do that. I very much buy that. But but. When you have a baby, I think that's just a profoundly life changing experience. I've not had a baby, so I don't. But that's what I've heard from people who did.

[01:23:23] [SPEAKER_01] And the word on the street, it's the word on the street. And I can still see it being very painful for someone, even if they're not a good person and even if they lie a lot to be separated from their babies and they're especially their baby that's nursing. I just think that's tough. I think I mean, my my line I think about this is that, you know, we're mammals and we want to be around our babies. And and that's tough. And you could be a bad person and that can be tough.

[01:23:49] [SPEAKER_01] So I don't think I have to like completely throw away all of my empathy. Or sympathy for somebody just because they're a bad person. But it's certainly I don't think they should have gotten easy on her just because she chose to become a mother. That creates a really perverse incentives. If you know, if you just say, oh, well, you're a mom. So then you're going to have a lot of bad people having kids that they're not going to take care of so they can get out of legal trouble. So I'm not saying that anything different should have happened.

[01:24:19] [SPEAKER_01] I want to be very clear about that. Nothing. You know, she does the punishment she got was the punishment she got. I'm just saying on some level it's tough and, you know, it makes me it's I think it's a sad situation.

[01:24:31] [SPEAKER_00] Does that make like that makes a lot of sense?

[01:24:32] [SPEAKER_01] Do you agree or am I being a sap here?

[01:24:34] [SPEAKER_00] No, I agree with what you're saying.

[01:24:35] [SPEAKER_01] I mean, I'm just but if I was if I if anything I said indicated that I didn't think she should go to prison, then that's not the case. I think.

[01:24:41] [SPEAKER_00] Yes, absolutely. I'm glad you clarified.

[01:24:43] [SPEAKER_01] The idea that she was punished for failing is ridiculous. She was punished because she lied to a bunch of people to get their money. The reason I think she was not convicted on the patient's charges, which they made a really big deal about in the movie, was because the patients due to the judge's pretrial ruling were not allowed to talk about the emotional impact. So one woman was told who was pregnant was told, oh, you lost your baby. She testified to that, but she wasn't able to say how that made her feel.

[01:25:14] [SPEAKER_01] Plus, it's also harder because there's no direct connection between Holmes and those patients, whereas she is on the phone with these investors. I think the right outcome happened where she was charged and. She got a pretty significant sentence out of it. One thing I was thinking was funny just from the true crime perspective is, did you know Errol Morris shows up in this?

[01:25:34] [SPEAKER_00] I did not.

[01:25:35] [SPEAKER_01] She was filming.

[01:25:37] [SPEAKER_00] Oh, yeah. She did some sort of interview with him a couple of years ago or years ago.

[01:25:40] [SPEAKER_01] Well, he's like a commercial maker. So like she made like a commercial with him, you know, kind of this hypnotic ad of her being like, this is going to change the future. You know, I said maybe he could put Jeffrey McDonald in a turtleneck and people will believe that, too. But I don't know.

[01:25:55] [SPEAKER_00] Well, I appreciate all the hard work you did reading the book and putting this together. What were your concluding thoughts? What's your big takeaway?

[01:26:03] [SPEAKER_01] Elizabeth Holmes is a. A liar. She doesn't care about honesty. She doesn't care about the truth. She's totally unremorseful. I think there's something seriously wrong with her. I'm not a psychologist. I'm not a psychiatrist. I wouldn't try to diagnose her. But there's something there's something really off there. And. I think even some of the things that come up in Bad Blood where she's like.

[01:26:29] [SPEAKER_01] Talking to someone about like a 9-11 conspiracy document and saying, well, Steve Jobs wouldn't have put it on Apple if it wasn't true. And then being like, he's not vetting all of the iTunes documentary. What are you talking about? Like, I think she's. I think this. I think something really wrong with her. You know, self-aggrandizing. She's just incapable of admitting wrongdoing. But I think we shouldn't fall for that. And I. I. I'm. I just. I hope her kids are OK. I guess that.

[01:26:57] [SPEAKER_01] You know, I mean, I think they're between the parents. I just I feel sorry for them in this situation. I just I think her and. I mean, I hope Billy Evans when he's kind of going on his whole rant about how he's going to destroy people like that. That that's a little bit frightening. And I think, you know. I think when she gets out, we're going to, you know, there's going to it's going to be a whole thing. I think there's going to be a lot of nonsense that happens. So I don't know.

[01:27:24] [SPEAKER_01] It disturbs me that there are people out there like this who who think they can do whatever and and no consequences should apply to them. So, yeah, I.

[01:27:32] [SPEAKER_00] It is very, very disturbing.

[01:27:34] [SPEAKER_01] I think the film exposes that and I appreciate it. So what are your final conclusions on this?

[01:27:39] [SPEAKER_00] Basically, what I've already said, she is a liar with no apparent conscience. And in this country and this world, if you can lie without remorse or feeling guilty about it, you'll go far. And maybe your final destination will be a prison cell, which is where she ended up justifiably.

[01:28:03] [SPEAKER_01] Just a total con artist. And I just would say we can appreciate the movie while also acknowledging there are facts outside of the movie that should inform even more how we interpret the movie. Because when I look at all of this and I see how she acts in this movie, it's like you are a liar. It goes from being like you're just maybe confused to being like you are straight up still lying. What is wrong with you? So, yeah, this is a really fascinating case. It's been fun to cover something like this. It's more white collar crime.

[01:28:33] [SPEAKER_01] But, you know, I think we're definitely open to continuing to talk about it in the future because unfortunately, I don't think this is the last we've heard of these people. Anyways, thank you all so much for listening. And thanks, Kevin, for hearing all my Theranos ranting over the past couple of days. All right. Thanks.

[01:28:49] [SPEAKER_00] Thanks so much for listening to The Murder Sheet. If you have a tip concerning one of the cases we cover, please email us at murdersheet at gmail.com. If you have actionable information about an unsolved crime, please report it to the appropriate authorities.

[01:29:08] [SPEAKER_01] If you're interested in joining our Patreon, that's available at www.patreon.com slash murdersheet. If you want to tip us a bit of money for records requests, you can do so at www.buymeacoffee.com slash murdersheet. We very much appreciate any support.

[01:29:33] [SPEAKER_00] Special thanks to Kevin Tyler Greenlee, who composed the music for The Murder Sheet, and who you can find on the web at kevintg.com.

[01:29:43] [SPEAKER_01] If you're looking to talk with other listeners about a case we've covered, you can join the Murder Sheet discussion group on Facebook. We mostly focus our time on research and reporting, so we're not on social media much. We do try to check our email account, but we ask for patience as we often receive a lot of messages. Thanks again for listening.