Closing Arguments

Macy's has all of your grill master essentials for Father's Day. Stop by to get our hand-trimmed chicken breast and certified Angus beef patties that are ready to grill. So dad can have his favorite dinner. Make sure to browse our bakery to find the perfect no-work Father's Day treat with our decadent peanut butter bars or famous donuts. Right now you can get boneless beef rib-i-stakes for 12.99 per pound at Macy's. Shop these Father's Day Essentials

out in store or online at macy's.com through June 18th. Macy's happy shopping! Enjoy the taste of summer no matter what the weather. When you head to Maverick for some Mountain Dew Baja Blast, you'll love the legendary refreshing tropical lime flavor. And to make the sweetness last longer, Maverick now has it in one liter bottles. For a limited time, get two for five bucks, single purchase regular price. Plus, adventure club members get 25 bonus trail

points with purchase. So blast in the Maverick today and enjoy that unmistakable Baja flavor. Maverick. Adventures First Stop. Previously on the dropout, Elizabeth Holmes concluded her testimony and the defense rested its case. I think given the evidence that they have, this has gone as well as it could for the defense. So at the end, we'll even one jurbe feeling sympathetic enough towards her that they cannot convict or they won't convict.

I think that's entirely possible. This week, both sides make their final push with the eight men and four women of the jury. Without a doubt, closing arguments are the most important time in a trial. It's the lawyer's last chance to get their side of the story before the jury before they go back into that deliberation room. Who will present the most compelling case? The fate of Elizabeth Holmes will soon be decided.

From ABC Audio, this is the dropout, Elizabeth Holmes on trial. I'm Rebecca Jarvis. So 18, Closing Arguments. More than three months, 32 witnesses and three juridist missiles after the criminal trial of Elizabeth Holmes began. Attorneys for the prosecution and defense had the chance to make one final appeal. On December 16th at 1.30am, journalists and curious observers started lining up in the cold and rain outside the San Jose Court

House to reserve a seat inside. We caught up the night before with Dr. Ann Copsill, a retired biotech executive who's been coming to the trial since the start. What do you expect from the closing arguments? I do think the prosecution is going to just really hit home the lies and how those led to the investments and then I think the defense is going to

really push home that Elizabeth did not intend. If the people perceived those as lies, she did not intend those and that other people were feeding her information and they were responsible for that information. When we spoke, she was preparing mentally and physically for the undertaking. I'm bringing a kind of a hat along with the raincoat and the umbrella, wool socks and wool pants. Well, I hope you get a good spot and I hope you get in the main room

and you're not having to battle it out. It would be a long, frigid wait for everyone outside, including Dr. Copsill, who by the way, showed up at 5.55am but still got stuck in the overflow room. Elizabeth arrived around 8am with her partner, Billy Evans and her mother by her side. But there was a new face in the entourage. Elizabeth's father, Christian Holmes, who'd been forbidden from attending up until this point as a possible witness on the defense's list.

With testimony concluded, he was now free to join. Once inside, the crowd shuffled to their seats. In the overflow room, there were some whispers about a new observer. Tyler Schultz, the grandson of Theronos Board Member and former Secretary of State George Schultz, whose whistle blowing in many ways is the reason we're all here now. To your knowledge, did Ms. Holmes know that Theronos could not do all those tests? She, yeah, she knew.

Tyler was on the prosecution's witness list, so is also now free to attend. He sat quietly and listened to the proceedings as they began. On the record, in the Holmes matter, said Judge Davila, just after 9am. Prosecutor Jeffrey Shank rose and addressed the jury. Elizabeth Holmes had a choice to make in 2009, 2010, and then again in 2013, he said. She could watch Theronos slowly fail, or she could make a different decision, and we now know through the evidence that she made a different

decision. She chose fraud over business failure. She chose to be dishonest with her investors and with patience. That choice was not only callous, it was criminal. Fraud over failure. It was a phrase that would come to define Shank's presentation. Shank told the jury, an honest pitch would have mentioned the company only had a handful of tests that the technology wasn't validated by pharmaceutical companies, or on military or medevac helicopters, that it wasn't deployed in the battlefield,

Afghanistan, or the Middle East. Shank said his closing argument would be broken into four parts. One, a summary of the 29 witnesses, the prosecution called. Two, a review of the crimes Elizabeth was charged with committing. Three, the individual elements of those crimes that the government had to prove beyond a reasonable doubt. And four, the evidence itself. To address topic number one, Shank began by projecting large photos of the government's 29 witnesses, summarizing each of

their testimonies. White collar defense attorney Caroline Polisi says this was a way to coherently put the puzzle pieces together. The whole point of closing arguments is to tie everything together. They're wrapping it up with a little bow and they're serving it on the platter to the jurors and saying this is why you should return a verdict of guilty, then each piece of this evidence fits

into a certain element of the offense. One by one, Shank went through the lab directors, the patients, the doctors, the farm employees, and all the investors who'd wired money to Therinavs. When Shank got to investor Brian Talbert, he played his recorded investor call with Elizabeth for the court. Well, it's wonderful to stick with you all. When I started the company, we knew that it would take us a long time to be able to establish an infrastructure that could

do any lab tests that is run in a traditional lab from a micro example. Several years ago, we realized that we had created an infrastructure that could in fact make it possible to get rid of the bomb or the big tubes of blood that are drawn from the arms. It's entirely. Shank pointed out that Talbert and all the other investors who communicated with Elizabeth left interactions with her with the understanding that Therinavs' technology could run any test.

It wasn't just an aspirational claim. The way Elizabeth presented it, it was a done deal. Shank then reminded jurors about the last government witness, journalist Roger Parlov. Part of the scheme the government alleges occurred here, was Ms. Holmes used the media to do some of the work for her said Shank. She made false statements to the media, and then when those false statements appeared in articles, she then sent those articles to investors, he said.

Shank played for the court one of Elizabeth's recorded conversations with Parlov. It starts off with Parlov requesting a site visit. Interested in if it would be possible, the Phoenix lab visit. So Phoenix's lab is not yet operational. All those samples are still being processed here in Palo Alto. But then Elizabeth Pivitz, telling Parlov, he'd essentially already seen the lab when he saw Therinavs' devices stacked up. What the lab looks like, remember, you saw that bank of devices

that we sort of went up to in the lab upstairs? Yeah. Black and white, it's literally, and they were on sort of a stack of shelves. So the lab is basically probably four of those stacks with devices on both sides. So if you'd like to see it, and I was trying to remember whether I walked you through it or not, it was downstairs, and you're welcome to come back out here and see it. Right. But I've basically seen it. You see it.

When the tape stopped playing, Shank explained to the jury that these were false statements from Elizabeth. She was communicating, here's what the lab looks like. It looks like a bunch of our devices. When in fact, the actual Phoenix lab contained only third party devices. With that, Shank moved on to the second part of his four topics. The charges against Elizabeth. For each, he gave a brief description of what the government needed to show.

Ms. Holmes is charged with committing two crimes he explained. The first crime is the crime of conspiracy to commit wire fraud. The second crime is the crime of wire fraud. Shank told the jury to think about the charges from the perspective of the victims, the investors and patients who testified. Shank said the government had to prove that there was an agreement between two or more persons to commit wire fraud. And that Elizabeth became a member of the conspiracy knowing of at least one

of its objects and intending to help accomplish it. What is the agreement between Holmes and Balwani, Shank Astratorically? Well, for the investor side, it's to get money from investors through fraud, through fraud statements. Shank reminded the jury that while Elizabeth and Sunny had different roles at the company, Elizabeth was always privy to information and had ultimate control over Theranos. Shank listed off examples to back this up, showing the jury a text where Sunny tells

Elizabeth he dislikes the direction she's taken with the PR and legal work. She has control in those areas. Shank emphasized. Shank quoted Safeway CEO Steve Bird who said Elizabeth owned a room and did most the talking in meetings with investors. Something other executives testified to as well. While the defense had painted Elizabeth as hands off when it came to the lab, Shank told the jury that email evidence suggested otherwise. Elizabeth dictated how results should be reported

and what to say to doctors. Shank moved to the second element of the conspiracy charge. Elizabeth's knowledge of its objective and intent. Shank said Elizabeth's objective was to secure money. She knew she needed it when Denise Yam shared the company's poor financials. Elizabeth knew the company was on shaky footing. Then she made false statements to investors. She knew those statements were false. Shank pointed out and yet she communicated them knowingly to

investors anyway. Shank moved on to the conspiracy to defraud Patience charge. Ms. Holmes' role in the patient fraud is to recruit patients through false statements. False statements that were made in the press. False statements that were made on the website about things like the accuracy, the reliability of the blood testing. Shank explained. Shank again pointed to text messages and email evidence in which Elizabeth and Sonny talk about the lab being a disaster. Proving Elizabeth was

well informed. Elizabeth knew about these problems yet intentionally communicated the opposite to Patience. Shank reminded the jury that before the website went live, attorneys told Elizabeth to remove certain misleading phrases. phrases she continued to pass to the patients and investors anyway. Next up, Shank addressed the six wire fraud counts, the bulk of the indictment.

Shank showed a slide of each investor next to their name and count. Alan Eisenman, Chris Lucas, Brian Tolbert, Brian Grossman, Lisa Peterson, and Dan Mosley. Shank reminded jurors they wouldn't see the names on the verdict form and encouraged them to take careful notes. Shank went through the different categories of false statements, Elizabeth repeatedly made to these investors, which you've heard repeatedly throughout this trial.

Shank played another clip from the investor call with Tolbert, where Elizabeth talks about Theranos' lucrative pharma contracts. The retail infrastructure is a foundation for being able to reactivate a lot of the pharmaceutical programs that we did that allowed us to build the business from cash from operations since we did our series C-Round in 2006. This was a lie explained Shank. Theranos wasn't making money from pharmaceutical companies to survive.

Shank played another portion of the investor call in which he said Elizabeth lied about Theranos' relationship with the DOD. Military is a big deal for us and I can tell you, potentially a couple of the areas in which we focus there. One in the context of work in the Middle East and specifically in Afghanistan and so the ability to take a technology like this and put it in place specifically on a meta-back as the potential to change survival rate.

Shank reminded the jury. Elizabeth herself testified that there wasn't work in the Middle East or Afghanistan. She's making false statement after false statement, Shank said. Shank then played another clip from Elizabeth's interview with journalist Roger Parlov, emphasizing to the jury how evasive and misleading Elizabeth was about her technology. Can you tell me again when you do perform Venipunctures? Why is that at the moment?

There's a variety of reasons. I think the biggest reason is that we're scaling and so we're supplementing Venipuncture with our micro samples from capillary samples or finger stick to handle that volume. What would be the situation where you would have the phlebotomus at Walgreens use

Venipuncture? Yeah, so at Walgreens, I think what I said before, the biggest reason is just as we're bringing up more and more tests and building out inventory and capacity in our lab, we'll use Venipuncture in addition to the micro samples just to handle volume of sample that we're processing. Shank told the jury that as the tape progressed, Parlov kept pressing Elizabeth trying to get at why Theranos was still doing Venipuncture at Walgreens. Is it because you can't

do the test? You don't yet have that test. But instead of admitting that, Elizabeth told Parlov, it was a way to manage the volume of tests. Attorney Caroline Polisi thinks these tapes could actually be as useful to the defense as they are for the prosecution. It cuts both ways, right? So she talks in these very broad strokes. She talks in a really, really in retrospect what is extremely

calculated, tenses and doesn't actually ever answer questions directly. And with the Parlov tapes, and if you actually look at the words that she's using, she never actually says straight on that this is happening that we're doing this. Shank moved on to the next element of wire fraud charges. Materiality, the idea that these kinds of false statements about military relationships, blood volume, farm evaluation, accuracy, revenue would cause an investor to invest.

These false statements made by Elizabeth mattered. Why? Because as the investors all testified, they wouldn't have invested in Theranos had they known the truth about these particular issues. Shank reinforced that Elizabeth had the intent to defraud because she made the choice to show investors these false claims in order to raise money. She kept false claims on the website to attract customers. Shank then reminded jurors about the altered documents and attacked Elizabeth's

claim she wasn't intending to deceive anyone. Look at what use Miss Holmes is making of these documents. She writes in an email to Walgreens, attached, please find three independent due diligence reports on Theranos systems. These reports are from Blacksow Smith Klein, Pfizer, and Shearing Plow, after their own technical validation and experience with Theranos systems in the field. She wants Walgreens to conclude that their independent due diligence reports said Shank.

That the pharma companies prepared the reports after their own technical validation. Shank turned to the Joe Rago article from the Wall Street Journal, published when the Walgreens deal went live. She knows the content of the article. She knows there are false statements in the article and as you saw a moment ago, it gets sent to shareholders. Intent Prosecutor Shank then focused the jury's attention on the wire fraud claims against patients.

Recall the faulty HIV, PSA, and HCG tests. The scheme vis-a-vis patients explained Shank. Involved both electronic wires to purchase advertisements to induce or encourage patients to use the service and also the use of the Theranos website or articles to induce a patient to go to the Theranos patient service center. They used electronic wires to send the lab results from their lab to the doctor's office knowing that those lab results were likely to contain inaccurate or

unreliable results. Shank went on to show again how Elizabeth knew that information presented publicly to patients was false. He read aloud a text Sunny wrote to her. We can mark in our lab and everything and people will talk about our finger stick without us talking about it. Then Shank read a text from Elizabeth. I think we should show them the first ad that's going to run an Arizona. It doesn't mention nanotainers or finger stick, just less blood, which I will make a big deal about

being butterfly and smaller needles. Shank also reminded the jury that Elizabeth knew about problems before going live in Walgreens and moved ahead anyway. Shank pointed out that when Dr. Rosendorf as lab director raised issues about the patient tests, their response was to get rid of him. Shank read the jury a message sent by Sunny at the time. We need to respond to him now and cut him Monday. They're going to get rid of the lab director who actually raises questions

who has concerns, Shank emphasized. And who do they replace him with? They replace him with Mr. Belwani's dermatologist who works five hours over the course of seven months and Dr. Sawyer who works even less. Shank then reminded the jury of the defense's biggest theme. Business failure is not fraud. If Miss Holmes had just allowed Theronose to fail, said Shank. If she had not chosen

to go down the path of fraud, then I think that statement would apply. But what happened here is when faced with the potential of business failure, Miss Holmes chose a different path. And that's where the fraud comes in. Shank went on to address the continued focus by the defense on Elizabeth's youth. The defense also I think would like to freeze time. Have you think of Miss Holmes as the 19 year old college dropout that started Theronose the entire time she

was at Theronose? But the truth is by the time investors who invested in 2013 or 2014 were interacting with her, she was nearly 30 and had been CEO for a decade at that point. They were not interacting with someone who had an experience running her company, he said. Theronose didn't need more experience to avoid fraud here. He continued. They didn't need one more MD or one more PhD to

avoid the fraud. It wasn't a question about experience. They needed a CEO and a COO who interacted with people honestly, who told them the truth about what Theronose could and what it couldn't do. Shank said. Shank also challenged another argument from the defense's opening statement that the government was looking at the case through a dirty lens that just wait and you'll see the evidence

in the case and you'll see that there's a lot of just innocent events. He reminded the jury that the witnesses they'd heard from were former employees Elizabeth Hiredt, investors, Elizabeth recruited, patients, Elizabeth advertised to, partners like Walgreens and Safeway, Elizabeth negotiated with. You're not being asked to look at the facts of this case through the government's eyes, said Shank, you're being asked to hear and evaluate the testimony of witnesses that at least

at one point in time, the defendant herself selected. Then Shank addressed Elizabeth's own testimony. The judge will read you jury instructions and they'll cover things like bias and credibility of witnesses and you can conclude that there is no witness that testified in this case that has more bias, more interest in the outcome of the proceedings than the defendant herself. That means that you

should look skeptically at anything that she testified about that was self-serving. He pointed out that Elizabeth's attorney, Kevin Downey, showed emails indicating Elizabeth received positive information from scientists and therefore anything she communicated wasn't meant to defraud. The problem is that's inconsistent with the facts and the evidence that you've seen, said Shank.

You've also seen email after email, example after example where she's told negative things poor developments, unfortunate things that are happening at their nose and those things are not being communicated to investors. She's deciding what's the kind of information to be communicated and what isn't. Shank then framed it another way. If there was no intent here, if they were just told whatever she knew, you would expect there to be a random distribution of some statements saying

positive things that she heard and some statements saying negative things that she heard. But when the witnesses, the victim investors testified, you heard favorable and false over and over, a favorable thing about Theranos that wasn't true. There's another word for that, Shank said. And that's intent. She's choosing which are the kind of facts to communicate and which are the kind of facts that

should not be communicated. Shank read a portion of Elizabeth's testimony about the light bulb going off in her head after problems with the lab and Sunny emerged following the CMS on it. There's a fundamental problem with that testimony, Shank explained. That testimony is not true. You've seen example after example of Miss Holmes being told by Mr. Bellwati and by her own brother about problems in the lab. Shank then went on to address Elizabeth's

most explosive testimony. The purported abuse she suffered at the hands of her former boyfriend and co-o Sunny Bellwati claims that outside of the court, Sunny has firmly denied. Shank addressing the jury was adamant. You do not need to decide whether that abuse happened in order to reach a verdict. The case, he said, is about false statements made to investors and false statements made to patients. You do not need to decide the question about whether the

abuse happened. Here's Caroline Polisi. I thought they did what they had to do with respect to addressing those allegations. The prosecution told the jury, both things can be true at the same time. You can simultaneously acknowledge that she may have been in an abusive relationship, but that doesn't necessarily negate her state of mind or negate any of the allegations that the

government's putting forth in the indictment. They specifically addressed that fact for the jurors because they essentially gave them permission, the government is saying, in order to come to a guilty verdict here, you can still take what she's saying at face value and believe that what she was saying about the relationship is true. Then Shank began to build to his grand finale. The story of Theronos is in some ways a tragedy, he said. What happened to the investors and to

the patients should not have happened? They should have been engaged with honestly, but it's also the story of individuals acting with remarkable integrity, individuals like Erica Chung, who said she was star struck when she first interviewed with Miss Holmes, but eventually began to see the problems with the technology and quit when her concerns fell on deaf ears. Individuals like Sireka Ganga Kedkar and Dr. Rosendorf, who also raised concerns, yet were similarly ignored.

Shank continued, fraud is sort of like a head start on the truth. For a long time, Holmes and Balwani knew the truth. They knew what Theronos could do and what it couldn't do, and the people that they interacted with, the investors and the patients did not. And they took advantage of that sort of gap at information, and for that, they were able to commit fraud, and because of that, you should find Elizabeth Holmes guilty of the charged offenses.

But you shouldn't find her guilty because of my words. You should find her guilty because of her words. Shank concluded by pointing to a text exchange between Elizabeth and Sunny on December 27th, 2014. Holmes and Balwani are texting each other, saying that this year, 2015, will be our year, that this year, we will execute. The problem is that by December 27th, 2014, every investor that you'd heard from had already invested. Theronos was testing patients blood through Walgreens for more

than a year. And those individuals, patients, investors, they all thought they were engaging with a company that had been executing, that didn't need to hope that they would finally execute. And because of that, there really is only one verdict supported by the evidence, and that's guilty on all counts. Attorney Caroline Polisey thought this conclusion was a missed opportunity on the part of the government. Shank's final words felt really flat to me.

This last piece of evidence that he's closing on, you would think you would want to be a crescendo piece of evidence, like a great sort of closing that would tie everything up in a bow and just serve it up on a platter to jurors. It just was not that they are texting each other. This is the year that we're going to execute on the vision for our company. And that is supposed to be this aha moment. That is the sort of nail in the coffin on the prosecution's case. Give me a break.

If anything, it should have been something like, we did it. We got them. We tricked them. We got investors to invest in our company because they bought into this false narrative that we were telling them about. No, it didn't say that. It showed two people that were still extremely devoted to this company, still really believing that they could deliver on these lofty promises,

which is what the defense has been saying from the beginning. I really didn't think that this was a good closing piece of evidence to leave the jury with. Hey, this is Brad Milky. I host ABC's Daily News Podcast. Start here. The dropout will be back in a minute, but first this episode is supported by FX's Groot Tesskery, a new series from Executive Producer Ryan Murphy. Hainis Crimes, Unceded a Small Community, and the local detective feels

these atrocities are eerily personal. As if someone who is something is taunting her. Starring Nisi Nashbetz, Courtney B. Vance, Leslie Manville, and Travis Kelsey. FX's Groot Tesskery premieres September 25th on FX. Stream on Hulu. Today's podcast is brought to you by Simply Safe. If you're constantly thinking about the safety

of the people and things that you value most, check out Simply Safe. Sleep better every night knowing Simply Safe's 24-7 monitoring agents are standing by to protect you if someone tries to break in and to send emergency help when you need it most. Simply Safe is offering 20% off their system, just visit SimplySafe.com-538. With the exclusive live guard protection, Simply Safe agents can act within 5 seconds of receiving your alarm and can even see and speak to intruders

inside your home, warning them the police are on their way. It's no surprise that Simply Safe has been named best home security systems by US News and World Report for five years running and the best customer service in home security by Newsweek. Protect your home this summer with 20% off any new Simply Safe system when you sign up for fast protect monitoring. Just visit SimplySafe.com-538. That's SimplySafe. S-I-M-P-L-I-Safe.com-538-TheNumbers, not The Letters. There's

no Safe like SimplySafe. When you're in Winters' favorite town, the snow-covered mountains surround you. A historic Main Street charms you. And every day brings a new adventure. Welcome to Park City, Utah. Naturally, Winters' favorite town. Join the experience at VisitParkcity.com. I want to invite you to start your day with us. Every morning on Start Here, we dive deep into the biggest news stories with some of the best journalists in the world. It's smart,

it's relevant and maybe most importantly for you. It's quick. Again, that Start Here, the daily podcast from ABC News, available wherever you listen. Defensive Attorney Kevin Downey started his closing argument, which spanned over two days, with a familiar theme. Elizabeth Holmes was building a business, and not a criminal enterprise. Downey told The Jury that while the government might have them believe that Theranos was built

by lies, by swindling, by half-truths, by misrepresentations. Then, in fact, Theranos was built and its business was conducted by a large group of people who shared many characteristics. This group, Downey said, was bright, they were intelligent, they were creative, they believed in the mission. They wanted to invent and then to make a product, they could be used to make blood testing services more convenient, more affordable,

cheaper, and at the end of the day, make people healthier. Downey told The Jury that by the time he'd gone through all the evidence, they'd see that the full picture reveals something very different from what the government has been presenting to you for three months, and indeed, for the last three hours. Downey began by reminding The Jury that Elizabeth was not charged with

defrauding the pharma companies. She's charged with making false representations to subsequent investors about whether Theranos had partnerships with pharmaceutical companies, and whether those pharmaceutical companies validated Theranos' technology, Downey explained. Downey then pulled up a slide from Theranos' presentation to Walgreens in 2010.

The representation was that Theranos' systems had been comprehensively validated over the course of the last seven years by 10 of the 15 largest pharmaceutical companies said Downey. Downey went on, the evidence shows that in the years between 2005 and 2010, Theranos had a number of successful partnerships with pharmaceutical companies, and that individuals within Theranos believed that, talked about it, represented it to each

other, and talked about it externally. But of course, there was that altered Pfizer document issue. Downey addressed it. The contract between Pfizer and Theranos specified that Theranos should prepare the report, and it should submit the report at the end of the program for an assessment by Pfizer, said Downey, reminding the jury that Pfizer never communicated a negative view with Theranos. Downey went on, Ms. Holmes admitted to you that she added the logos and did it without

thinking there was anything wrong with it. And why would that be her state of mind? Downey asked, he then pulled up an exhibit showing that Elizabeth had put investors in touch with Pfizer, and that Elizabeth had sent the infamous document back to Pfizer, logos and all. Ms. Holmes has no intent to deceive people or hide things that are going on in those relationships, contrary to the government's assertions, said Downey. Downey went through the other doctorate

pharma reports too, sharing plow and glaxo spith cline. Had they responded with any concern? No, Downey emphasized. Downey went on to tell the jury that had it not been for the defense, they would have never heard about the many, many pharmaceutical projects that Theranos had and completed successfully. Downey emphasized, he was telling the jury the full story. Attorney Caroline Polisey thought these points went a long way for the defense.

The biggest bombshell that we talked about certainly was this doctrine of the Pfizer documents, but then I thought the defense was able to show that she actually then resent the Pfizer document and another pharmaceutical company document with both Theranos and the pharmaceutical companies, logos that she had put on them. She sent them back to the actual company and they didn't bad nilash. And you know, if this was really such an untoward thing to do, well then why didn't Pfizer

say something about it at the time? I thought that was compelling. Downey said what the prosecution had done was a pattern that the government is showing an event looks bad, but at the end of the day when all the evidence flows together, it isn't so bad. Downey then told the jury the critical question they needed to answer was Elizabeth's intent,

what she understood and believed why she did what she did. If you have a reasonable doubt as to whether Miss Holmes committed any element of the offense, you should find her not guilty, Downey said. And what does reasonable doubt mean? Downey asked rhetorically, turning the jury's attention to a visual aid. It was the image of a staircase. The first step said no evidence. That led up to a centilla of evidence. A little farther up the staircase was probable cause. And then finally

reasonable doubt. Downey told the jury they had to climb that entire staircase before finding Elizabeth Holmes guilty. Attorney Caroline Polisey thought this was a useful device. Even though gut instincts play a big part in trials, when the jurors get back there and they have to fill out the jury form, it is it's almost scientific in terms of each and every element must be

met beyond a reasonable doubt. And you heard the defense just belabor this point of just how high a burden of proof the government has to satisfy with respect to getting a guilty verdict in this case. I think the defense did a very good job of explaining this idea to jurors that it's not just that you think she did it or she probably did it or maybe you know you're you're it's just more likely than not that she that she's guilty. No, that's not the standard in the criminal justice system.

It has to be beyond a reasonable doubt. That's an extremely high burden for the government. Downey told the jury there were five categories of evidence that would present a clear picture that Elizabeth did not intend to defraud. These were Elizabeth's relationships with the FDA, feedback from employees, feedback from outsiders. Elizabeth's repeated willingness to expose Theranos's technology to outside review and the actions Elizabeth had taken after the CMS report.

First up, Elizabeth's relationship with the FDA. Ms. Holmes worked proactively between 2013 and 2015 to get Theranos' system 4.0 approved by the FDA, Downey said. He emphasized the FDA had in fact approved one Theranos test, the Herbys test. Downey said Elizabeth had disclosed what was going on in connection with Theranos' business in great detail to the FDA. Downey then turned to the inner

workings of Theranos. I think you know and Ms. Holmes testified to this that she believed starting as early as 2010 that Theranos was going to be capable of putting in place this 4.0 technology that would be capable of performing any blood test. Elizabeth received regular updates about the technology he reiterated. That's fundamental and central to her thinking when she goes out and

makes public statements. Downey drew the jury's attention to Dr. Ian Gibbons and the report he delivered to Elizabeth in 2010 about Theranos' 4.0 technology, which as you'll recall came up a bunch in Elizabeth's own testimony. In this document, Dr. Gibbons, who was leading assays at the time, reports that the 4.0 system will be capable of performing any measurement required in a distributed test setting. Downey then moved to the feedback Elizabeth was receiving at the time from outsiders.

People she really respects he reinforced. For example, Elizabeth Mentor and board member Channing Robertson had told investor Brian Grossman of P.F.M. that there was nothing the technology couldn't do. Downey said Theranos had received positive feedback from GSK, the Mayo Clinic, and medical experts. Downey brought up the Johns Hopkins document, which you'll recall have the disclaimer at the

bottom stating it was not a validation of Theranos' technology. But downey reminded the jury that Johns Hopkins had found the technology was novel and sound, that it could replace a central lab and that it didn't have any major weaknesses. What does it say about Miss Holmes downey astratorically? She wasn't afraid to have this technology validated. And what happened when

issues did come to Elizabeth's attention? Downey moved to the CMS audit. One of the first things that Miss Holmes did was to ask a large group of national scientists to come to Theranos and evaluate the technology, the data, the technology itself, said downey. It's hard to see how someone acting with bad intent would undertake those steps in response to the type of criticism that she was suffering downey said. And what happened when it came to voiding the questionable test results?

Downey said Elizabeth turned on a dime. At the end of the day downey said to the jury, the question you're really asking yourself is, what was Miss Holmes intent? Was she trying to defraud people? Did she believe in good faith in her technology? Did she respond to events in a way that suggests she knew she had been caught? I would say to you ladies and gentlemen downey went on,

that this evidence taken an aggregate says to you the following. She believed that she had invented a very valid form of technology that she was submitting to the FDA for approval to take to the market. It says that she believed that others outside the company shared that view, and she had no fear of showing that technology to people outside the company. And it says to you that as soon as someone said no, there are problems here. Her reaction was to

invite people in to look for those problems and root those problems out. Are those the actions of someone who'd been engaged in a conspiracy to defraud people? Downey asked, if the government fails to prove that one element beyond a reasonable doubt, then with respect to the counts that are in your verdict form, you should return a verdict of not guilty. Downey told the jury, Downey also addressed the testimony of many government witnesses that they were unaware

Theranos was relying on modified third party machines for many tests. This was no secret, said Dowdy. The FDA was told in the fall of 2013 that Venus testing was being performed, he said. The fact that Theranos was using Venus testing was disclosed on its website, as you see here, he said, pointing the jury's attention to an exhibit. It's not credible that investors were unaware. Downey told the jury he wanted to tell them the story of what actually happened at Theranos.

He recounted Elizabeth's early journey. There was a lot of progress in the early years. And then Theranos had an extraordinary breakthrough in 2010, where scientists and engineers in a large number began to believe that they had invented the technology that would realize Theranos's goal. Excitement was circulating in the company, he said. People believed they'd invented the methodology to do any blood test. That is the moment at which the government says a criminal conspiracy began

within Theranos, said Downey. Downey then took the jury through Theranos' relationship with Walgreens, taking a step back to remind them that Walgreens was a giant publicly traded company with lots of stores and retail operations all over the country, whereas Theranos was a six-year-old company with a 26-year-old CEO and no public presence or retail experience. But the government says Theranos came to negotiate and during the course of those negotiations, defrauded Walgreens,

said Downey. Downey drew the jury's attention to what he said were the two major issues the government raised with the negotiations. First, the pharmaceutical validation. The claims about 10 of the 15 largest pharmaceutical companies. The evidence is consistent with it being accurate, said Downey. The government's other issue was the claim Theranos could run comprehensive blood tests across a wide range of technologies, said Downey. You know where that statement came from?

It's from the discussions with Dr. Gibbons and others in the early part of 2010, said Downey. Downey reminded the jury that the former Walgreens CFO testified he understood the technology was going to develop into further generations. And as the partnership with Walgreens progressed, Downey reminded the jury that Elizabeth was relying on a large number of very highly qualified scientists to lead that R&D effort. Specifically, Dr. Daniel Young, Theranos VP and lead scientist.

He appears on something like 200 exhibits during the course of the case, said Downey. He was effectively the chief technology officer of Theranos during this period. But Dr. Young wasn't called to testify, Downey reminded the jury. And because of that, we don't know what his testimony would have been with regards to the technology. But you know what he said in real time, said Downey. And you know what Miss Holmes testified to

as her understanding of those capacities. Downey then went on to frame Theranos' use of modified third-party devices as an ingenious invention, a solution to dealing with large sample volumes. It was also an invention that was an incredibly important trade secret, said Downey. And because of that, Downey argued, Elizabeth was guided by experts to fiercely protect this trade secret. Something she did disclose in board meetings and to the FDA and CMS,

Downey said. Now, the proposal of the government is that well, even though this was a trade secret, you should have found some way to disclose it to your investors. But the evidence suggests at the time that the investors were very well aware that Theranos had trade secrets, of which they

did not have knowledge. As for the board members, if Elizabeth was a criminal, Downey asked, would she have assembled this incredibly illustrious group of people who had experienced over time in the technology industry, in the medical industry, in government, in retail, many, many different areas that touched on Theranos' operation, and in which she could get candid and direct feedback? If she were a criminal, that seems to me, ladies and gentlemen, said Downey,

to be very, very unlikely. And that's an additional judgment of her intent that you can consider as part of your deliberations. And that's where Downey left it for day one of his closing argument. When defense attorney Downey picked things up the following morning, you reminded the jury that Elizabeth was interested in long-term investors and often would speak about the future of the company in five or ten years. That's important, and that's the disconnect he said,

with what the government would have you believe. Downey explained to the jury, when Elizabeth was talking to investors in the public, she wasn't concealing the number of tests that were done on older Theranos devices. She was painting a picture of the future. Downey addressed the six investors who testified. He pointed out that this was a tiny sample. There were actually 275 people or entities that had invested in Theranos, he told the jury.

He referenced their stock purchase agreements. Investors were told this was a speculative investment, and these were supposed to be sophisticated investors with decades of experience. Now, people lost money, said Downey. I don't meant words about that. Miss Holmes certainly did not intend for people to lose money. That's a bad event and a failure on her part. But that's not the issue that we're concerned with in this trial, he said.

The issue we're concerned with is, did she intentionally make misrepresentations to people for the purpose of inducing them to invest in her company? The evidence is fairly clear that she did not, said Downey. When investors were investing in 2013 or 2014, why did they invest, yes. The reason that they invested was that they knew that Walgreens had agreed to put Theranos technology in their stores eventually and to operate Theranos service centers.

That judgment was all they needed to know because that meant that a big national company had evaluated Theranos and made a decision to become a partner with Theranos and bringing its technology to the public market. That's a big deal. That's a much bigger deal than the number of particular tests at any given moment, said Downey. Downey then addressed the taped investor call.

The main focus of the government's presentation of evidence here is the statement that Miss Holmes made during that tape recording about Theranos' relationship with the military and what the use of Theranos' devices was in connection with Medevacs. Here's some of that tape again to refresh your memory. The ability to tape a technology like this and put it in flight specifically on a Medevacs as the potential to change the rival rate. Downey emphasized Elizabeth was using the word

potential as in the future. Downey then went on to list some of the work Theranos had in fact done with the military. They had contracts with Scentcom, he said, and special operations command. Now, was Theranos doing any work towards this goal or was this, as I think the government suggests, just a fantasy of Miss Holmes? Downey asked, well, the truth is, and you've heard testimony during the case, Theranos was doing a lot of work towards this goal, said Downey.

Caroline Polisey says this was very effective in addressing the government's claims. The Medevacs, the DOD, that type of evidence, Downey said, look, the government got up here and basically tried to sell you a story that was really not fully accurate. They would have you believe that this idea of Theranos' technology being used in Afghanistan and being deployed on Medevacs and in helicopters and things like that, that that was a complete fantasy made up

by Elizabeth Holmes. Well, if it weren't for us getting up here and showing you guys these exhibits of the actual contracts that Theranos had and the actual work that it was doing with these entities, you would have just thought that she had made this up out of thin air. Well, that's not exactly the case. Downey also addressed the Parlov tapes, suggesting that Elizabeth had disclosed Theranos was using modified third-party devices. When she told Parlov the lab in Arizona, would be a moderate

complexity lab. You have, is it a medium complexity lab in Scottsdale? That's right. It's called a moderate complexity lab. The difference is that you run laboratory developed tests. You need to be a high complexity lab. According to Downey, this indicated the lab was using commercial devices and that disclosure tells Mr. Parlov everything that he needs to know, said Downey. Downey then turned to address the patient claims. Ask yourself the question, he said. Was Ms. Holmes intent with

respect to what was going on in the lab? Was it good faith? Did she believe that the tests that were being offered were accurate and reliable? If she did, why did she believe it? It was a familiar theme that we've heard before that Elizabeth believed things were okay because employees like lab director Dr. Adam Rosendorf told her they were. After all, Dr. Rosendorf had said in his own testimony he never offered a test he thought was inaccurate and unreliable. So Downey turned to

the jury. Did Ms. Holmes know in running Theranos? The Theranos was not able to consistently provide accurate and reliable results. Downey said what they'd heard from these few patients was purely anecdotal. These were merely three among a pool of millions of tests. Downey said in actuality, Elizabeth was receiving a lot of positive patient feedback which informed her view of what Theranos services were doing for people's health. Downey closed his argument focusing on the government's

main theme that when Elizabeth was out of time and out of money, she decided to lie. There's no evidence at all. None at all, said Downey, which links Theranos' efforts to enter into partnerships with Walgreens in Safeway to any desperation for money, any concern about money he said. Downey said in fact the company's own record showed the opposite that Theranos went out to raise money in 2010 after it had achieved a technological breakthrough and then in 2013 after it was

moving forward with Walgreens. You know what Ms. Holmes did in her life? Downey said, you know that she left school. She gave up a college education that people would give their right arm for. She gave up her youth. She gave up her friends. She gave up her close relationship with her family. Why? Because she believed she was building a technology that would change the world. That's our story, said Downey. He contrasted that with the government's story. The beginning in

2010 every day, every day from 2010 to 2016, she knew she was committing a crime. She was robbing investors and that in 2013, she began robbing patients. You don't need to know what an ass is. You don't need to know what Clia is. He told the jury, you know from your own experience and from your own common sense, how to evaluate people's intent. And you know that at the first sign of trouble, Crook's cash out, criminals cover up and rats leave a fleeing ship. She didn't do any of

those. None. It was a phrase by the way that drew a little attention outside the courthouse. Downey had fumbled a bit. Rats flee a sinking ship. They don't leave a fleeing ship. Downey went on. Did she cover up? What did she tell Dr. Doss? Turn every rock, every rock under which the government says was hidden a thousand crimes. Did she cash out? You know that already. She didn't sell a single share of stock. Did she leave in the face of that criticism? No. She stayed.

Why? Because she believed in this technology. She stayed the whole time and she went down with that ship when it went down. Ladies and gentlemen, Downey closed. That is who this woman is. And I am asking you to acquit her on all counts in the indictment. And you don't need more for me to know what her intent was. Notably absent from his closing was any reference to the alleged abuse Elizabeth suffered at the hands of her former boyfriend and COO Sonny Belwani.

Attorney Caroline Polisi thinks this omission may have been a smart calculation in the end. I think they don't want to lose credibility now with the jurors. They don't want to oversell their hands. So they've laid out the argument. They've elicited the testimony. They have that in the background. That now is in the jurors' minds in terms of contextualizing what was going on. At least in Elizabeth Holmes' personal life, which clearly spilled out onto her professional life,

they have the context of what was happening in the background. They don't need to now hit it over the head with a hammer and run the risk of losing credibility in the eyes of the jurors. Because let's be honest, it's a pretty far-fetched argument to make that she should be absolved of any criminal liability at all based on this abusive relationship. The two don't match up. And I think that just purely by dint of having it sort of existing on the record in the

background, they've gotten the benefit of whatever that testimony is going to do. And now they're moving forward with the legal arguments. They still want to maintain their credibility with the jurors. Macy's has all of your grillmaster essentials for Father's Day. Stop by to get our hand-trimed chicken breast and certified Angus beef patties that are ready to grill. So Dad can have his favorite dinner. Make sure to browse our bakery to find the perfect no-work Father's Day treat

with our decadent peanut butter bars or famous donuts. Right now, you can get boneless beef rib-i-stakes for 12.99 per pound at Macy's. Shop these Father's Day essentials in store or online at macy's.com through June 18th. Macy's Happy Shopping! This episode is supported by FX's Grotesquery, a new series from executive producer Ryan Murphy. heinous crimes unsettle a small community and the local detective feels these atrocities are eerily personal. As if someone who's something is taunting her.

Starring Nisi Nashpets, Courtney B. Bantz, Leslie Manville, and Travis Kelsey. FX's Grotesquery premier September 25th on FX. Stream on Hulu. When you're in Winters' favorite town, the snow-covered mountains surround you. A historic Main Street charms you. And every day brings a new adventure. Welcome to Park City, Utah. Naturally, Winters' favorite town. Hooo. Join the experience at VisitParkCity.com. Connect via phone or online with a board certified doctor who will get to know you and provide

whole-person care. Advice, prescriptions, even mental health support and referrals. Teladoc Health is not only convenient, it's affordable too, and it's covered by a surprising number of insurance plans. Download the app to get started today or go online to register or schedule a visit at teladochealth.com. With the defense wrapped, the prosecution had the final word with the rebuttal. Prosecutor Jeffrey Shank passed the baton to John Bostick, who began by

laying out the story of two different versions of the company called Theronauts. The first version, a revolutionary company that had created a device that could run any blood test from a tiny fingerstick sample had been validated by major pharma companies and was being used to save soldier's lives on the battlefield. It never existed. It existed only in the words of the

defendant Miss Holmes and her co-conspirator Sunny Bellwani, Bostick said. It existed in the written materials that she and her co-conspirator provided to investors and to others outside the company and it existed in the minds of the people who believed her, those investors and patients at the heart of this trial. The real version Bostick continued was dramatically different from the

rosy picture that Elizabeth was painting for others. Employees may have worked hard to make the technology work, but the disease that plagued Theronauts wasn't a lack of effort, it was a lack of honesty, and it wasn't at the bottom of the ground level of the company. It was at the top as the evidence has shown Bostick said. So what was the darker truth that Theronauts

Bostick asked? For one thing, the evidence that the trial has amply demonstrated that there were very serious problems with Theronauts' technology, problems of quality control that we've heard about many, many times, problems that former employees like Erica Chung and Dr. Adam

Rosendorf had raised, that Elizabeth had been completely aware of. Next on Bostics, what was true at Theronauts' tour, the prosecutor challenged defense attorney Downey's assertion that Theronauts had a rich, ongoing relationship with pharmaceutical companies and was generating a significant amount of revenue from those relationships. That simply wasn't true, said Bostick. For starters, the undisputed evidence shows that Theronauts collected no revenue from pharmaceutical companies

after 2009, said Bostick. Bostick brought up Theronauts' financial issues. They're one to $2 million a week burn rate. The fact they were less than two months from running out of money and shutting their doors in September 2013 when they were pursuing their launch with Walgreens and aggressively pursuing investment from investors. You're not required to find motive. Bostick reminded the jury,

but that is absolutely part of the motive in this case. Bostick once again emphasized that Theronauts' devices were categorically not being actively used by the military and rebutted Downey's references to the limited engagements that the company had with the military. The military claims Elizabeth made to investors were simply not true, Bostick said. And if investors had known those

facts, they never would have written checks to Theronauts. If Walgreens had known those facts, they wouldn't have partnered with Theronauts and agreed to put Theronauts' testing services in Walgreens' stores. And if patients had known those facts, they never would have trusted Theronauts to tell them what was happening with their health. In other words, Bostick concluded, those facts, the truth, were fatal to Theronauts, and Ms. Holmes knew that.

Bostick went on to try to dismantle some of the specific themes that Elizabeth's attorneys had offered in her defense, telling the jury he was going to walk through why none of them gets in the way of a conviction on all counts in this case. Both parties agree, Bostick said. Ms. Holmes worked hard. That she wanted Theronauts to succeed. She wanted her company to be successful.

But while the defense would have you believe that was a reason to doubt Ms. Holmes intent to defraud, Bostick said on the contrary, Elizabeth committed these crimes precisely because she was desperate for the company to succeed. Bostick pointed to defense attorney Downey's assertion that the failure of a business does not equal a fraud. Again, there's no dispute there, Bostick said. But he added,

that's not the nature of the allegation in this case. By convicting Ms. Holmes by finding that all the elements are met in this case, you're not punishing the defendant for being ambitious and failing. We admire people who set ambitious goals and set out to achieve them. No, Bostick continued, you ought to look at the fact that Ms. Holmes refused to accept failure and turned to breaking the

law instead. As for Elizabeth's age, you shouldn't be distracted by that, Bostick said. Although the defense highlights the age Ms. Holmes was when she founded the company, it's important to remember that the person on trial is 37 years old today. In 2013 and 2014, when she was deciding to offer flawed blood tests to the public, she was 29 and 30. In 2010, when the fraud on investors began, she was 26. That is certainly old enough to know the difference between right and wrong.

It's old enough to know the difference between honesty and dishonesty, said Bostick, adding, remember, Erica Chung joined Theronos just out of college. Ask Erica Chung how young is too young to know that offering inaccurate blood tests is a bad thing, Bostick said. The next defense, the embossed took apart, blaming others. First, Elizabeth's Board of Directors. It's impossible to blame

the board of directors for what happened here, Bostick said. Mainly because the board was not given the information that it needed to help the company navigate the problems that it was facing. They weren't told, for example, about the company's use of third-party analyzers, something General James Mattis testified to. General Mattis testified that, had he known, it would have leaped out at me because my whole effort at Scentcom had been to try to get it into

theater because it was different and it could do this off of this one small machine. Bostick then asserted the board was essentially window dressing. They were not there for their contributions to the steering of the company and the decision-making of the management. Instead, they were there to be impressed and to bolster the reputation of the company. Next, Bostick focused on the scientists and

engineers. Elizabeth Bostick said, claims to have relied on advice from Dan Young, but the evidence showed critically that he was unaware of the claims that she was making about Theronosis Superior Performance or supposedly Superior Performance. Bostick showed the jury some examples of this. Bostick also reminded the court many scientists who were well aware of the problems with the company's technology resigned, including lab director Dr. Adam Rosendorf.

If Rosendorf was really in charge of everything in the lab, why did he quit out of concern for the way that the technology was performing? Bostick asked, why did he quit and protest of the practices in the Theronosis lab if it was within his power to change things? Next, Bostick addressed the lawyers. The defense had referenced the guidance they'd given Elizabeth, but Bostick said, on many occasions, the jury had seen evidence Elizabeth overrode that guidance. Then there were the investors.

The defense had continuously pointed out their lack of due diligence, their lack of skepticism. But what does the law say on that, asked Bostick? Jury instruction 26 says precisely, an alleged victim's negligence is not a defense to wire fraud. In fact, a scheme to defraud is still a scheme to defraud even if it would only instare someone who is less careful than they should be. And while these may have been risky

investments, it's no excuse for giving false information. Bostick also pointed to the defense's continued references to next-generation devices at Theronosis. They sought to blur the lines between the devices Theronosis was using to conduct its patient testing and the next-generation devices that were in development, said Bostick. The statements Ms. Holmes made were never about current Theronosis technology. Never about the devices that were currently being used for patient

testing. The defense is asking you to believe that all of the false claims Ms. Holmes made about the technology were about some fictitious future device. Bostick said, statements in investor documents were in the present tense Bostick emphasized. Those investor presentations would have needed to be completely rewritten in order to be honest and lighted the defendant's theory about these next-generation devices. Bostick emphasized that this pointed

squarely at Elizabeth's guilt. This argument that Ms. Holmes was actually talking about a future device and not current technology is actually a significant admission by the defendant. It means that Ms. Holmes was intentionally representing as a present accomplishment something that had not happened yet and that she knew that. The defense is presenting it as if it excuses Ms. Holmes' criminal conduct. But in fact, this is just a description of how the fraud actually worked.

Then Bostick addressed the doctored pharma documents. The defense had argued that Elizabeth sent some of these back to pharma companies with no repercussions, but Bostick pointed out the wrong thing that happened there is that the logos were used to deceive a third party, whether it was a potential investor in Theronosis, whether it was Walgreens, a potential business partner. That's where those documents were used as tools. That's the wrongful conduct that you should focus

on. As for trade secrets, said Bostick, the defense would like you to believe that in every case, every time information was withheld from a victim, it was simply a good faith effort to protect the company's trade secrets. That defense doesn't hold water, said Bostick, particularly when it comes to modifications that were made to third party devices. The defense wants you to view those as trade secrets. But Bostick asserted that's nonsense. There's no argument. There can be no

argument that the use of non-modified third party devices was a trade secret. That's something that any lab could do. It was one more instance of Elizabeth creating a false impression, which was her goal, argued Bostick. Then Bostick addressed the defense's claims that Elizabeth didn't sell her stock. It is not necessary, Bostick pointed out, to find that Ms. Holmes actually made a financial profit from this fraud, or that it was successful in order to convict. That is

not an element that the government has to prove. Nonetheless, there were other benefits flowing to Ms. Holmes other than money. She had a substantial salary. She also benefited from the attention, the accolades, the fame, and the prominence that being the CEO of this successful company, broader. There's another reason why she didn't cash out. That relates to her ultimate vision,

and the level of wealth and success that she wanted to achieve. In November of 2013, Sonny Text Ms. Holmes, let's build the true American Empire, a monopoly, our obligation to USA, and Ms. Holmes responds, that's what we're doing. It's not disputed. Ms. Holmes, apparently, evidently, was not in this simply to get money. She wanted to build the true American Empire, and the success of the company turned out to be the motive for the crime that she committed.

Finally, Bostick addressed the topic the defense had decided not to touch in its closing argument. Sonny Bellwani and the alleged abuse he inflicted on Elizabeth. Abuse he categorically denies. I wonder if any of you feel like that testimony makes your job more difficult or more complicated. It's difficult for us to sit and listen to someone talk about something painful or hurtful that they've been through. It's natural to have a reaction to hearing someone talk about something

like that. You might be wondering how Ms. Holmes's claims of abuse affects your analysis of the fraud in this case, or whether it affects the analysis at all. But, Bostick emphasized, this is a critical thing to understand. You do not need to reach a conclusion regarding what happened with Ms. Holmes and Mr. Bellwani in order to render your verdict in this case. It's important to note that there's no evidence here connecting those allegations of abuse

with the actual charged conduct, and crucially said Bostick. Even Elizabeth herself admitted on the stand that Sonny did not force her to make any statements to investors, to journalists, he did not control her interactions with Walgreens and Safeway executives or with the Theranos board. That, Mr. Bostick said, will leave you wondering why Ms. Holmes testified about those allegations. In the absence of any evidence linking that experience to the charged conduct,

you should put it out of your mind, said Bostick. He also reminded the jurors that sympathy has no part in your deliberations according to the jury instructions. What did matter? What the jurors should focus on according to Bostick was Elizabeth's behavior before outsiders started asking questions. It's most telling what a person does when nobody is watching, Bostick said. He encouraged the jury to consider the intelligent, thoughtful, and well-spoken person

they saw on the stand. Intelligent people understand the difference between what is true and what is not, between what is happening today and what might happen in the future. The thoughtful people like Ms. Holmes think carefully before they say something, and well-spoken people like Ms. Holmes have no trouble communicating exactly what they mean to

communicate. Based on that, you know that when Ms. Holmes again and again intentionally told people that Theranos could do something that it could not, that that was on purpose, and that her intent was to deceive and to cheat. This is a case about lies and half truths, said Bostick. It is a case about borrowed credibility, he said. Ms. Holmes borrowed the credibility of pharmaceutical companies of Walgreens and the illustrious members of the board of the press. By attaching herself

to these individuals and organizations, she bolster Theranos' own credibility. And by exaggerating those contexts, she caused others to believe that Theranos must have the legitimacy of these other entities. Over the years of Theranos' operations, Bostick said, Ms. Holmes had multiple chances to do the right thing, but at so many of the forks in the road, she chose the dishonest path,

he said. Instead of telling the truth, time and time again, she consistently put the reputation of the company over what the law requires and what patients and investors were entitled to. Bostick concluded his closing remarks by reminding the jury that Elizabeth repeatedly said on the stand that she wished she'd handled certain issues differently.

How should that affect your thinking? Asked Bostick? Well, you should realize that someone in Ms. Holmes' position naturally might feel some regret about choices that she made. It would be strange if she didn't give in what is resulted from those choices. But you should keep in mind that regardless of how she feels today about her past choices, it's those choices themselves that you need to focus on in determining whether she committed a

crime back then. Because Ms. Holmes made the choice to defraud investors and patients, and because she conspired with Sunny Bellwani to carry out those schemes, you should return a verdict of guilty on all counts. That's the only verdict supported by the evidence. And with that, over three months of arguments and testimony came to a very highly anticipated end. Attorney Caroline Polisi thinks the prosecution made a much stronger showing in their rebuttal.

But will it be enough? They definitely did a better job on rebuttal than they did in their beginning closing argument. And perhaps it was a strategic move on their part to save sort of the big guns for the rebuttal. Because that's obviously the last thing that the jurors are going to have in their mind. They have to go into a very high level of, look, she knows the difference between right and wrong. She knows the difference between truths and untruths.

And so, you know, the defense can split hairs about whether the tense of what she was talking about was sort of in the aspirational or whether she was talking about right at this moment. Let's be honest, you know, we've presented many, many witnesses here that got the distinct impression that this was happening in this moment in time at Theranos. That Theranos' technology at that very moment was capable of performing any test that a traditional blood analyzing

company could do. And that it had contracts concurrently, contemporaneously with the Department of Defense, that it was doing all these things in real time. And, you know, clearly, there's something to be said for that. I mean, there's a reason that this case was indicted, right? There is a lot of evidence that she misled investors, doctors, and patients about this technology. My only concern with the government's case is whether or not they can really get over

the hurdle of the burden of beyond a reasonable doubt. Clearly, there's something there. She clearly misled people. The question is, can they make sort of a bulletproof argument that is going to fly with jurors? We'll soon know what the jury believes. At 4.40 p.m. on Friday, December 17, the case was officially handed to them. Deliberations commenced at 8.30 a.m. yesterday, December 20. Will this be a quick call? Polizy predicts it'll come sooner than later.

I definitely think we'll get a verdict by Christmas. No juror is going to want to draw this out past the holiday. It's why you sort of often see verdicts on a Friday. There's nothing that moves juries to a consensus, to unanimity, then an upcoming holiday. And so I think that they are going to do their job diligently, but also with the understanding that they're going to come to a conclusion before the holiday. And when it happens, you'll know, because we'll be back with our

final episode, the verdict. Make sure you're subscribed so you don't miss it. And a final note before we go. We have some exciting news. While the trial is about to end, there's more of the dropout story on the way. Coming to Hulu March 3, 2022, a limited scripted series called The Dropout, based on the first season of this podcast. It stars Amanda Cypher as Elizabeth Holmes and Navine Andrews as Sunny Bellwani. Thanks for listening. We'll be back soon. We hope.

Elizabeth Holmes and Sunny Bellwani did not respond or declined to comment for this podcast. Some material, including port depositions, were edited for clarity and time. The dropout Elizabeth Holmes on trial is written and reported by Victoria Thompson, Taylor Dunne, and me. Victoria is the executive producer, Taylor and I are producers. For ABC audio, Suzy Lewis producer and Madeline Wood and Marlowe Milwaukee are associate producers.

Dia Athan and Miles Cohen are a court producers. For ABC's Business Unit, our associate producer is Victor Ordoniaz and our production assistant is Lane Wynn. Mixing and scoring is by Suzy Lu and Evan Biola. Evan also composed the music for the dropout. Our artwork is by Teddy Blanks at Chipson Y and Sedric Hansdad. For ABC audio, Liz Alessie is executive producer. Special thanks to Josh Cohen, Elizabeth Russo, Ian Rosenberg, Eric Avram, and Stacia Dishishku.

Ryan Reynolds here from Mint Mobile. With the price of just about everything going up during inflation, we thought we'd bring our prices down. So to help us, we brought in a reverse auctioneer, which is apparently a thing. Mint Mobile, unlimited premium wireless. I'm going to get 30, 30, 30, 30, 30, 20, 20, 20, 20, 20, 20, 20, 15, 15, 15, 15, just 15 bucks a month. So give it a try at mintmobile.com slash switch. $45 up from payment to $15 per month. New customers on first three month

plan only. Taxes and fees extra. Speed slower above 40 gigabyte C.D. tail.