How 13 counts and a point system turned into an 11-year sentence

Transcript

Transcribed by machine (Whisper) from the episode’s audio, so a word may be off here and there.

1. 19:23

   you guys think you were going to win the case a hundred percent yeah a hundred percent there was only a few counts that she was convicted on she was found not guilty this is what a lot of people don't really get yeah so the basic math on it is that there was 13 counts um liz ran about 12 and a half million tests on patients at theranos over an 18 month period the government spent years investigating 12 and a half million blood tests yeah on patients yeah yeah it's not like a small number it's a it's a pretty big number in a short period of time and the next year they're going to do like a hundred times more i mean they were going to be the third largest lab company in the country.

2. 20:02

   After Quest and LabCorp. Yeah, and the year after that, it would have been bigger than either of them. And sorry, I lost my train of thought. Can somebody remind me where I was? Well, so we were going through- Oh, the counts, yeah. So there's 13 counts. Of the 12 and a half million tests that she ran, the government brought forward four patients that they accused her of defrauding with inaccurate results.

3. 20:25

   Patient fraud. Yeah, patient fraud. You gave this person a bad result, you knowingly gave them a bad result, and you were responsible for having done so. She was acquitted of those counts, so there was no evidence that was brought forward that was convincing to a jury that there was any fraud associated with the patients. I think one thing that's really strange to me as an inside observer, but also at times an outside observer, is diagnostics is like an inherently inaccurate space. 90% accuracy for some tests is good, and for other really inaccurate tests, 70% is really good. So if you're running 12.5 million tests, four patients isn't exactly statistically significant to show that there's problems there. But yeah, she was acquitted of those counts. But she was convicted of financial fraud. She was, yeah. So she was convicted of defrauding three investors and then colluding

4. 21:25

   with her partner at the time to do so. So conspiracy. And the conspiracy conviction is what gave the judge the authority to give her a bigger sentence. Yeah, that was insane. Coupled with the fact that they brought in Rupert Murdoch as a victim after the case. That's right, yes. Which allowed them to also add additional time to the sentencing guidelines. Yes. So context, Elizabeth was sentenced to 135 months in prison. That's 11 and a quarter years. And the way in which sentencing works is there's all these aggravating factors. So they calculate this through a point system, and the points are dependent upon a variety of things. So was there any aggravation in what you did? What was the amount of financial loss? And Elizabeth was convicted of these three counts of defrauding those three investors which again like I and she

5. 22:18

   deeply believe in her innocence associated with those and I implore you