She was found not guilty on three additional charges concerning defrauding patients and one charge of conspiracy to defraud patients. The jury returned no verdict on three of the charges concerning defrauding investors, and Judge Edward Davila, who is presiding over the case, is expected to declare a mistrial on those charges.
The charges Holmes was found guilty of include one count of conspiracy to defraud investors, as well as three wire fraud counts tied to specific investors. Holmes faces up to 20 years in prison as well as a fine of $250,000 plus restitution for each count.
I think the sound bite is deceiving. From a CNN article:
Over the course of its 11-week case, the government called just three patient witnesses to the stand, two of whom were individually tied to wire fraud counts.
If society punishes women for their natural voices, I wouldn’t call a woman who intentionally lowers their voice to combat those subconscious biases a sociopath.
Is that relevant in this case? Are there equally culpable men who have not been prosecuted in recent years? I honestly don’t know of any obvious examples.
The specific issue here is that she was found guilty of fraud on investors involving fairly specific false statements and specific wire transfers (that sort of specificity is generally required for a legal prosecution.) There are plenty of male (and female) fraudsters out there who just haven’t made the specific claims that would get them caught. Also, some of the worst fraudsters are in the political arena which seems (on the GOP side) to give them Teflon.
She’s certainly not alone in changing her voice pitch, Margaret Thatcher is a well known example of this sort of thing. Also worth mentioning is that Thatcher changed because she got a lot of shit from men about her voice being shrill and unpleasant to listen to, though they used more graphic terms.
It’s basically about speaking deeper and slower, but the voice of Holmes does sound forced. Thatcher took lessons for years and you wouldn’t think she sounded any other way.
And countless Youtubers, male and female (though in that case a machine does it for them.)
Oh, and radio announcers since forever.
The difference is that Holmes was asking people for their money, as opposed to just chatting. If someone in the media is talking about games or the weather and they accidentally slip into their real voice, you just think, oh that’s a little weird - but then they are putting on performance. But if somebody does it while asking you to take out your wallet, you immediately think wait, if their voice isn’t real, what else about this isn’t real?
Of course, everyone doing a presentation, trying to raise money, etc. is putting on an act. The genius of the Steve Jobs of the world is that they have the act down so pat that the cracks never show.
Finance Youtuber Patrick Boyle goes over the verdict, including explaining why the jury didn’t convict Holmes on the charges involving patients (under the law it would require showing that Holmes personally had convinced the patients to take the test.) Plus discussion of risk vs. fraud in investments.
It’s a silly criticism. I can see pretty much anyone who comes from a lower class background deliberately changing their accent / cadence / pitch / vocabulary to suit their professional or social environment to increase their chance at acceptance and therefore success. Why not a CEO, or literally anyone. My manner of speach fluctuates all the time depending on whom I’m talking with, sometimes deliberately, and sometimes unconsciously to my regret (my cooing speaking-to-a-child voice isn’t something anyone needs to hear…)
