Theranos trial: Is Elizabeth Holmes’ domestic abuse defense the ultimate con?

Was the bold and confident founder of the blood-testing startup Theranos a long-suffering victim of an abusive boyfriend who controlled her every move and therefore not responsible for the epic meltdown of a company once valued at more than $9 billion? Court documents indicate that this is the story the disgraced Theranos CEO is hawking at her criminal trial.

Holmes is apparently prepared to claim that her boyfriend, Ramesh “Sunny” Balwani, controlled what she ate, when she slept and how she dressed, threw sharp objects at her, and monitored her text messages and emails.

It’s a strange departure for a business magnate who for years wore black turtlenecks to channel notoriously tough Apple founder Steve Jobs, portraying herself as a strong, confident woman who was proving all the doubters wrong: “First they think you're crazy, then they fight you, and then all of a sudden you change the world,” she once said in a televised interview.

It takes one to know one

Holmes successfully conned the world about the validity of Theranos’ blood tests, and now she would have us believe that she was the one who was conned? I’m reminded of the classic insult “It takes one to know one.” The trial promises to make for a wild ride and media spectacle.

Holmes and Balwani are accused of deceiving investors and committing massive fraud through false or exaggerated claims about the accuracy of the company’s blood-testing technology. Each is charged with a dozen counts of fraud and conspiracy to commit wire fraud. Both have pleaded not guilty. And now Holmes’ claims of psychological, emotional and sexual abuse are conveniently starting to surface.

How can someone who put the world under her spell now claim that she was the one who was spellbound?

Fumble!: NFL's role in sports gambling is a recipe for disaster and it should step back

Holmes had the confidence to drop out of Stanford at age 19, raise hundreds of millions of dollars from top-flight venture capitalists and private investors, persuade two former secretaries of State and a former Senate majority leader who was a physician to join her board, but would now have us believe she lacked the fortitude to do anything beyond what her boyfriend allowed?

In essence, Holmes is trying to turn the tables and position herself as the victim after apparently victimizing both her investors and the patients who relied on the accuracy of her faulty blood tests.

It’s a cynical move that could end up backfiring. Jurors may not take too kindly to the fact that instead of accepting any sort of responsibility, Holmes might be planning to express remorse but then shove all the blame onto her boyfriend to avoid conviction and lessen her own sentence.

Elizabeth Holmes makes the play

It sounds totally crazy, but then again maybe not. Holmes spent years allegedly outsmarting sophisticated investors and top political leaders. It is not hard to imagine her lawyers feeling good about putting her on the stand to convince 12 of her peers that she is at heart a good person who was operating in difficult circumstances under the control of a calculating partner.

That Holmes would opt for such a bold move is not entirely surprising. She personified the approach of “go big,” blitzing the world with media appearances and numerous interviews touting the value of her product when (prosecutors will argue and investigative reports suggest) she knew full well it did not work.

Clearly, this former Silicon Valley darling has a sky-high degree of charisma and can be convincing. It's what ultimately propelled her company to global juggernaut status. But refusing to accept responsibility is a trait common among people exhibiting sociopathic tendencies.

Astoundingly, Holmes claims she had no capacity to make her own decisions during the same years she allegedly chose to deceive everyone about her overhyped blood-testing product. It’s quite possible that she might be trying to capitalize on the public’s vocal opposition to the mistreatment of women in the workplace as part of the #MeToo movement.

Additionally, deciding to birth a baby shortly before trial could be an attempt to secure sympathy. After all, if she were to be convicted and sentenced to a lengthy prison term, then this would amount to essentially punishing her child, forcing him to grow up without a mother.

Paste BN's Abigail Anthony: I was uncomfortable with femininity. Makeup helped me embrace womanhood.

It will be fascinating to watch this saga of greed, ambition and deception play out in the theater of the courtroom. The world will be watching with keen interest as Holmes and her team play the victim card and make the case that the brazen and baritone-voiced executive was in fact merely a powerless pawn in her partner’s quest to sucker investors and defraud the public. 

Will the jury and the public accept this defense, or view it as just the latest chapter in a flimsily constructed fairytale story destined for a tragic ending?

Evan Nierman, CEO of crisis public relations firm Red Banyan, is author of "Crisis Averted: PR Strategies to Protect Your Reputation and the Bottom Line."