CNN’S Nicolle Thomas is with the Elizabeth Holmes trial in California, reporting from Palo Alto.
The prosecution wrapped up its case on Friday by arguing, essentially, that Holmes is a liar.
Michael Welner, the lead defense psychologist, called Holmes’ testimony “extremely evasive” and repeatedly misrepresented the standard to which prosecutors have compared Holmes and others under oath during testimony.
Welner seemed to contradict some of the testimony from the prosecution. One of his conclusions from testing Holmes’s mental state was that Holmes was prone to serious thoughts, sometimes socially inappropriate thoughts such as trying to kick others out of the room or rubbing her tummy, in order to get to people.
The prosecution asked Welner if that was an excusable act for a woman who was using the company’s money to pay for party dress for herself and spa treatment for other employees. Welner said that was possibly.
Sketch by Jocelyn Flink
There’s been no argument over the fact that in 2017, Holmes was worth $4.5 billion — “an unprecedented amount of money” according to Welner, who then told jurors that, according to police, Holmes was also stealing nearly $600,000 a year from her employees.
Welner also said Holmes was boasting about how much money she had amassed from the company’s IPO. Welner said Holmes told him she now owned the company for only $70 million, from the money earned from her personal life instead of from her work.
Despite all that — and Welner saying that she rarely read or watched the filing necessary to acquire the stock — Welner said Holmes never took steps to block the purchase of the stock by one of her colleagues.
She never hid her interest in the future stock income from others.
Crucially, Welner said Holmes never touched a shred of evidence in her personal life from the company to look for anomalies and anomalies that might have affected the stock prices or others.
The jury has rested and will now hear closing arguments from both sides on Monday. The jury will decide, after hearing closing arguments from both sides, if Holmes is guilty or not guilty by reason of insanity.
Holmes was hoping to raise enough cash in her future IPO to pay for a risky oncology research program she had been preparing. The company planned to spend $75 million developing the experimental drug, which required enormous financial resources for Holmes and her co-founder, Gaby Waksal.
The company went public in 2014, and Holmes looked to fund the company’s oncology research through the IPO. But when investors balked, Holmes tried to downplay the effort, saying it wasn’t a priority. Later, she agreed to drop the effort, about $4 million spent so far.
She is facing 31 counts of fraud.