The worst person you know has a favorite cereal. They are someone’s child. They sometimes sing. They sometimes feel embarrassed. That doesn’t absolve them of anything. They are still the worst person you know.
This weekend the New York Times ran a profile on Elizabeth Holmes, a blatant attempt to launder the reputation of the disgraced Theranos entrepreneur found guilty of fraud. The headline itself is enough to worry you: “Liz Holmes Wants You to Forget About Elizabeth.”
“The black turtlenecks are gone. So is the voice. As the convicted Theranos founder awaits prison, she has adopted a new persona: devoted mother.”
Beyond casting Holmes as a renewed spirit, caring parent, and businesswoman who simply fell prey to her own vision, the article shows just how differently the justice system can treat people. Specifically women. More specifically mothers.
It’s impossible to consider the births of Holmes’ two young children outside of the context of her fraud trial. The article acknowledges the suspicions of many — that Holmes was trying to leverage her pregnancy and newfound motherhood as a way to avoid prison.
Her trial was delayed in 2021 until after she gave birth to her first child. Holmes’ defense team cited her young children in their arguments that she should remain free while appealing the conviction.
The Times reporter details the time she spent with Holmes and her family as they count down the days of her freedom. She was supposed to report to a Texas federal prison to begin her 11-year sentence on April 27. A last-minute appeal has delayed that date indefinitely.
The reporter hangs with Holmes and her family as they visit the zoo, enjoy breakfast, and walk their dog on the beach. The article states, “On the second day we spent together, [Holmes’ partner] Mr. Evans asked me what the most surprising part of spending so much time with Ms. Holmes was. I told him it’s that I didn’t expect her to be so … normal?”
Two things here: First, that the article makes such a major point about Holmes being a mother is striking. In 2019, researchers at Johns Hopkins School of Medicine published a report looking at rates of pregnancies in more than half of the U.S. prison population. They found that almost four percent of newly admitted women were pregnant. In just a single year, incarcerated women gave birth to 753 children in the prisons surveyed.
Putting aside the dark realities of the American prison system, what makes Holmes and her role as a mother any different from these women? Where is their gushing profile and trip to the zoo?
The second thing that sticks out about this article is that it never takes the time to give voice to the people who were negatively affected by Holmes’ crimes. Perhaps speak to the wife of Theranos chief scientist Ian Gibbons.
Worried he would lose his job by revealing the company’s shady business dealings in a mandatory court deposition, Gibbons took his own life in 2013. Rochelle Gibbons told CBS News last year that Holmes had shown no remorse for her husband’s death.
The Times profile makes no mention of any of this, instead taking time to recount stories of Holmes searching for her dog after it was carried off by a mountain lion and rushing her sick toddler to the hospital only to have the doctor say that Holmes looks like “that horrible woman.”
I’ve covered criminal cases of people who did things much worse than anything Holmes has ever been accused of. I’ve sat behind them and their families in court. I’ve watched them cry during testimony and seen footage of their parents visiting them in lockup. No matter how horrendous their crimes, you can’t shake the fact that these are real people. People who’ve done horrible things. But still people.
And people still need to be held accountable. A lesson that is lacking from the Times’ fawning bit of PR work.
