[annoyingnoob]

> Holmes’ partner, William Evans, also bought a one-way ticket “and did not return until approximately six weeks later, returning from a different continent,” prosecutors said.

Did she buy the ticket herself or did someone book a trip and buy tickets for her/in her name?

I don't support her but I'm willing to give her the benefit of the doubt. The one ticket sounds bad, but a series of tickets with eventual return does not.

[ceejayoz]

> I'm willing to give her the benefit of the doubt.

Why would you be inclined to give a convicted fraudster the benefit of the doubt?

[moralestapia]

>Why would you be inclined to give a convicted fraudster the benefit of the doubt?

Lol, thanks for that!

I'm currently going through some sort of anxiety moment after I realized my whole life I had to defend myself over things I would never do. I built and sell a SaaS offering and there's always this element of "I have to convince the other party this is not a con" because after all you're a salesman to them and you're always going to be biased towards your product.

I then contrast that with people who are blatantly lying and I feel like I live in two different worlds, one for myself, one for those others. Bankman-Fried, ESG, Holmes of course, not only they steal but even afterwards they still get to have the "benefit of the doubt" and other people make excuses for them about their behavior etc ... where the explanation is quite simple and doesn't need 20/20 vision "they are fraudsters, they steal money through lies and their schemes". Clown world.

[annoyingnoob]

In the case of this ticket thing, when her significant other then went on the trip and came back, presumably not by himself. I'm willing to give the the benefit of the doubt here because we clearly are missing important information. Like I said, I don't support her.

In one sense, some justice has already been served as she is out of business and can't be in the medical business. I'm sure she is still subject to civil liabilities too. She is not an immediate danger to society, there is not a lot of value in locking her up. There would be more value in extended community service than there would be in confinement.

[WitCanStain]

There is plenty of value in locking her up, among them letting financial criminals, who so often get off with laughably light sentences, know that if they steal massive amount of money from other people, their life, theirs personally, will be over.

[annoyingnoob]

We may have to agree to disagree. Here is some evidence to back up my position.

https://nij.ojp.gov/topics/articles/five-things-about-deterr...

[akira2501]

Is there a concern that she'll flee to Mexico and start up a brand new multibillion dollar fraud? I just wouldn't see any attempt to actually flee from justice on this case to be particularly fruitful, if she's capable of committing this fraud, then she's clearly capable of seeing the futility in fleeing to Mexico.

In that sense, I'm happy to give her the benefit of the doubt; certainly, more benefit than I would afford to anyone who was on the board of directors.

[readthenotes1]

"willing to give her the benefit of the doubt"

That was her business model wasn't it?

[smcl]

That and posing for photos of her holding up a vial of blood and peering thoughtfully into it

[AnEro]

At this point does it matter that we are left with the assumption that the 'I'm not worried I'm too pretty go to jail' (paraphrasing) dude also tried to flee conviction

[xiphias2]

Actually she was right, she is waiting prison sentence, but she is not in jail