On the other hand, it's mildly amusing that there's more lying being added to the Theranos story.
The whole debacle is just bonkers. I agree the story might be mere "human interest" but imo it certainly is interesting! His behavior fits with the whole gestalt of fraud, entitlement and deception.
This guy needn't have been doing anything "wrong" to want to mislead them or lie to them.
It might have been hamfisted, but I admire the chutzpah. Definitely an amusing news story, it's like something out of a Seinfeld episode.
You are under no obligation to not lie to a reporter.
In fact, it used to be, that a reporter's job was to get to the truth, and that skill used to be admired and celebrated.
Now it seems they're so flabbergasted when someone lies to one they decide to publish a story about it.
Of course, the existence of some powerful supporters conceivably could have an impact on her trial too, even if the simple that his guy showing up by itself probably won't.
Mate I'm not even sure she had that kid for any other reason than to tilt the trial in her favor, and elicit exactly this response
Who describes someone's family as their "entourage"?
I don't know who was in the group. Maybe the writer does, or maybe they don't. Maybe it was just her family, maybe it wasn't.
However, the entourage is described as being her family members immediately prior.
Speculating about the facts doesn't improve the writing (or the editing if that's at fault). It is what it is presented as, unless you were there or something.
This is completely normal langauge.
But what was written was that the group was her family members and then it was called an "entourage". Which is odd as it stands.
It could well be sloppy writing or an editing mishap. However, it felt to me like it might signify an awkward attempt to dehumanize her and her family, since that was the overall theme of the article.
It's good business. They've found an audience, they intend to keep it.
Just a shady group.
Alright, maybe his statement that he fixed old cars "for a living" could fade into being called a lie, or at least stated with intent to mislead.
It really feels like, some third-rate reporter got angry about being hoodwinked, and decided to get back at him by writing a puffy hit-piece. Really ugly look for NPR; this isn't news or even noteworthy.
Maybe this guy only misdirected. What going on is significant. In fact, that changes nothing.
The story is that wealthy and powerful person showed up at the Holmes trial and made an effort to misdirect reporters. Whether he made overt factual untruths is irrelevant unless you the logic of a third grader.
I tend to doubt there’s any sinister plot afoot here, or that it’ll have any impact on the trial. He probably wanted to attend the trial, knows she’s toxic, and was worried that any association with her might affect his businesses. But yeah, I think her father-in-law appearing at the trial in a flimsy disguise and giving ham-fistedly evasive responses is definitely worth a mention, even if it’s not legally actionable or related to the trial itself.
It's not noteworthy because it's bizarre behavior. It is specifically relevant behavior. This entire case is only about determining if she is guilty of engaging in exactly this behavior.
We should all thank the guy for providing such a great example of why not to believe any story her and her lawyers cook up.
And also asking reporters' takes on Elizabeth Holmes, and then trying to "correct" them by saying that everyone just copypastes the initial story, and no one has told the real truth behind Theranos (implying that Elizabeth is innocent and gets blamed unfairly).
Keep in mind, those weren't random reporters, those were reporters who were lining up to be juries on the trial. I think it is pretty newsworthy that one of the accused parties' family members decided to mislead potential juries under a fake identity outside of the courthouse.
Now that I am re-reading it, it definitely seems like I've made a bad assumption there.
Please allow to present some exhibits.
"Theranos, the blood-testing startup that went from Silicon Valley darling to facing fraud charges"
"From Silicon Valley darling to fraud accused"
" the Silicon Valley darling said could perform a variety of medical tests with just a drop of blood"
Don Lucas. Larry Ellison. Oracle.
As I said, Elizabeth Holmes being pretty much from Silicon Valley royalty was key to the leverage she managed to achieve. I'll be surprised if she's found guilty.
Not following up on that investment is a pretty strong signal
Most of us knew something wasen't right, but were afraid to ask the hard questions. I don't belive it was do to gender. Plus it was the whole fake it till you make it cool kids time.
That black turtleneck borrowed from Jobs. That was the only thing that tipped me off at first. And no, I was not going comment on her looks. Was it because she was female? I don't know? I just knew it was a tell. (I didn't know anything about her, or her company. I just saw a person acting a part.)
The rest of her story didn't make much sense, but so many Silicon Valley companies don't make sense. She just jumped on the band wagon.
A years worth of chem at college. (I don't know for sure.)
Rediculious claims about hematology.
A generation of tech folks fawning over Zuckerburg. It was the "Everything is possible with youth, hard work, white, comming from wealth".
Investors were salivating over another Zuck.
If she is found innocent, or guilty, I don't think it will affect women entrepreneurs.
She is blaming everyone, but that's what the wealthy do when in a bind. It's never their fault. Always the victim.
She was an aberration. We were the fools.
I believe she dodged some hard questions because of her gender, but so many wealthy semi-attractive male/female entrepreneurs seem to skate through life without getting asked the hard questions, until it's too late.
I do find it disconcerting that kids (male, or female) from wealthy families get so many passes in life.
The judge concurred, concluding, “I found Mr Berezovsky an unimpressive, and inherently unreliable, witness, who regarded truth as a transitory, flexible concept, which could be moulded to suit his current purposes.” Berezovsky lost.
(From Guardian profile of Jonathan Sumption, https://www.theguardian.com/law/2015/aug/06/jonathan-sumptio... . That quote has always stuck with me since it describes so many of the different dweebs who we all run into).
Second, to have opaque ajudication on things is not in the best interest of this community. Posts that are penalized in this manner should have a post indicating as such.
Reward: some reporters fall for your everyman spiel and manner and write a nicer article about Holmes
Risk: you're found out and... nothing. nothing happens to you because you're rich and its not like your career is in jeopardy.
I guess when you're super rich you never have any consequences to doing stuff like this so why not try it? Worse that can happen is you get an article written about you.
What do you believe happens to non-rich people who lie to reporters when accosted by reporters in public?
Watch this guy, he will bare his teeth more often after this event of exposure. He is going to protect her blindspot (frankly: morality in general) with his deepening-fractal viewpoint on right and wrong.