Speaker 1: I'm Jonathan Walton and this is Queen of the Khan.
Speaker 1: The Unreal Housewife, Episode seven, a bonus episode Jenshaw and
Speaker 1: The Dropout.
Speaker 2: The world works in certain ways until a new great
Speaker 2: idea comes along and changes everything. What if you could
Speaker 2: test your blood in your own home, and what if
Speaker 2: it wasn't a whole file but just a drop.
Speaker 1: That's a clip from The Dropout, an amazing Hulu series
Speaker 1: about Jenshaw adjacent scammer Elizabeth Holmes, a woman who conned
Speaker 1: investors out of hundreds of millions of dollars, tricking them
Speaker 1: all into believing that her company Fair Nose invented this
Speaker 1: little magic machine that could test for hundreds of diseases
Speaker 1: and ailments using a single drop of blood. It was
Speaker 1: like something you'd see on Star Trek. Walgreens in fact,
Speaker 1: invested a fortune in Elizabeth Holmes and actually started installing
Speaker 1: these little blood drop test machines in their stores. Come
Speaker 1: to find out they didn't work at all. The entire
Speaker 1: blood drop test machine was an elaborate hoax because as
Speaker 1: hard as Elizabeth Holmes tried to invent this thing, and
Speaker 1: she tried really hard, she just couldn't do it. She
Speaker 1: spent millions of dollars, hired and fired hundreds of talented
Speaker 1: scientists and engineers. She built dozens of prototypes, but ultimately
Speaker 1: none of them functioned, but she pretended they did. She
Speaker 1: not only built investors out of millions in her insane quest,
Speaker 1: but testing her machine on actual patients caused massive misdiagnoses
Speaker 1: and one of her employees actually committed suicide over the
Speaker 1: whole thing. In the end, Elizabeth Holmes got criminally charged
Speaker 1: and convicted of fraud and was sentenced to more than
Speaker 1: eleven years in federal prison. And guess what, Right now,
Speaker 1: she's actually serving time with Jen Shaw.
Speaker 3: So Elizabeth Holmes has asked to go to the same
Speaker 3: federal prison camp that Genshaw's at. This doesn't surprise me.
Speaker 1: The amazing Emily de Baker again host of the Emily
Speaker 1: Show podcast.
Speaker 3: It's the western most minimum security women's prison camp, which
Speaker 3: makes it easier for family to visit. And that's in Brian, Texas.
Speaker 3: And we will see Elizabeth Holmes and Jenshaw at the
Speaker 3: same women's prison for a substantial number of years. Do
Speaker 3: they write a book together? Do they start a business
Speaker 3: venture together? I want to know everything about the conversations
Speaker 3: between Elizabeth Holmes and Jenshaw because both of them have
Speaker 3: argued similar things. I was caught up in this. I
Speaker 3: was trying to prove myself as a woman in this field.
Speaker 3: The men around me were manipulating me. I didn't know
Speaker 3: that this was fraudulent. I believed in what I was doing.
Speaker 3: I didn't believe that this was harmful. They both have
Speaker 3: had very similar defenses in their cases. I had these
Speaker 3: horrible things happened to me in the past, and that
Speaker 3: is an excuse for what I'm doing now. I think
Speaker 3: there's a lot of similarity there. I am fascinated to
Speaker 3: see what happens. I wish they were filming a show.
Speaker 3: Is that terrible? Maybe it's terrible, but I want to know.
Speaker 1: I agree it's fascinating. But I do think at their
Speaker 1: core they are different women, different criminals. What differentiates Jenshaw
Speaker 1: from Elizabeth Holmes, in my mind, is Jenshaw is a scammer, right.
Speaker 1: I don't think Elizabeth Holmes intended to be a scammer.
Speaker 1: I really do believe Elizabeth Holmes believed she could make
Speaker 1: this thing that could test a thing with a drop
Speaker 1: of blood. I think that because she kept hiring engineers
Speaker 1: to create it, and when they couldn't, she'd fire them
Speaker 1: and hire more engineers, and she kept trying. I do
Speaker 1: believe Elizabeth Holmes, in her heart of hearts, really did
Speaker 1: believe she could do it, and she just needed more
Speaker 1: time and more money, and lying to get it seemed
Speaker 1: like a decent price to pay. Whereas jenshaw knew it's
Speaker 1: a scam out of the gate, I'm just going to
Speaker 1: ride this train as long as I can and suck
Speaker 1: all these people out of as much money as I can.
Speaker 1: I know this is all a lie. Whereas Elizabeth Holmes, Yes,
Speaker 1: she lied and stole money and built investors, But I
Speaker 1: believe she believed she could do it. She could create
Speaker 1: this thing that would revolutionize blood tests all over the
Speaker 1: world and save lives. I believe she thought she could
Speaker 1: do it. But you know, that's not a defense.
Speaker 3: But what scamming investors, you know, scamming investors out of
Speaker 3: four high hundred nine hundred million dollars and having patients
Speaker 3: get her patients were getting results, they were her answer
Speaker 3: or didn't or were in remission or weren't. The potential
Speaker 3: impacts I think of Elizabeth Holmes are broader than Jenshaw
Speaker 3: because of the amount of people her scam reached because
Speaker 3: it was getting put into Walgreens and Safeway. But with Genshaw,
Speaker 3: I wonder if she also believed that these are just
Speaker 3: shady marketing practices, that this isn't really criminal, like it's questionable.
Speaker 3: It's not wire fraud and money laundering. It's just questionable.
Speaker 1: No. I know she knew it was so bad because
Speaker 1: look at her attempts to conceal it, look at the
Speaker 1: offshore accounts in the message. She knew it was wrong.
Speaker 1: She knew she'd go to jail for it if they
Speaker 1: caught her, and she tried her darness not to get caught. Whereas, yes,
Speaker 1: Elizabeth Holmes knew line to investors to get money was wrong,
Speaker 1: but in her mind she was doing it for noble
Speaker 1: cause to invent this thing. And again, if Elizabeth Holmes
Speaker 1: was a scammer, scammer, scammer, she would have just taken
Speaker 1: the money and ran.
Speaker 3: That's true. She did end up with nothing.
Speaker 1: But she really did try. She tried to. She had labs,
Speaker 1: she had teams of scientists hiring and firing the minute
Speaker 1: they couldn't invent the thing. She had in her head,
Speaker 1: she'd fire them and replace them with others who could
Speaker 1: from Apple, from Google, from whatever. You know, Like she
Speaker 1: really did believe she's crazy. I'm not saying she's not crazy,
Speaker 1: but I don't think you know, she had more character
Speaker 1: than Jenshaw.
Speaker 3: Do you think there was like an altruistic narcissism to it,
Speaker 3: where it was a I'm just crazy enough to believe
Speaker 3: I can change the world. And everyone was gassing her up,
Speaker 3: and she's like, so what if I have to change
Speaker 3: a few things and lie to investors about how it's happening.
Speaker 3: At the end of the day, the good it will
Speaker 3: be good is going to be worth it. So it's
Speaker 3: when it all cost versus scam. It all costs.
Speaker 1: Maybe, I mean, and that makes her a little better,
Speaker 1: but definitely I don't. She's not a I mean, she's
Speaker 1: not a con artist. She just you know, got carried
Speaker 1: away with a dream. Let me be her attorneys.
Speaker 3: I love that you're like, I can argue this for
Speaker 3: Elizabeth Holmes because I can see the altruism or No.
Speaker 1: It's not necessarily poor Elizabeth Holmes. It's just that I
Speaker 1: don't think her intention.
Speaker 3: She didn't go into it defrauding. She went into it
Speaker 3: with a purpose to make a change and defrauded to
Speaker 3: get to that purpose because when it became, when it
Speaker 3: all costs. Her partner in his sentencing submission called her
Speaker 3: a zealot. He said she had a religious fervor to
Speaker 3: make this happen and was going to like basically cross
Speaker 3: any boundary to make it happen, like laws be damned,
Speaker 3: I'm going to force this thing into existence, which is
Speaker 3: a difference from Shaw because it was also boundaries be damned.
Speaker 3: But the end result with Genshaw was just financial. But
Speaker 3: where did hers go? Jenshaw seemingly also has nothing. Elizabeth
Speaker 3: Holmes and her sentencing submission said, but I've already lost
Speaker 3: all my stock options in my private plan. Cry me
Speaker 3: a river about your stock options. But they made the
Speaker 3: same argument that you're making and sentencing is. But she
Speaker 3: took nothing. She never cashed out the business. She went
Speaker 3: down with the ship and is now going to prison
Speaker 3: for going down with the ship. But it's not different
Speaker 3: than other venture capital that fails. Not everything that investors
Speaker 3: invest in becomes the next big thing. So it and
Speaker 3: the people.
Speaker 1: I'm not saying she's a good I don't think she's
Speaker 1: a good I think there's a difference. I'm just saying
Speaker 1: motive wise, her motives were never.
Speaker 3: Evil, her victims were more savvy, her victims were. I mean,
Speaker 3: she was convicted of defrauding investors, not patients. I think
Speaker 3: a lot of the patients of theirness were also victims here.
Speaker 3: But she was convicted of defrauding investors who are savvier
Speaker 3: than the victims of Genshaw. Genshaw was preying on non
Speaker 3: sophisticated victims in order to perpetrate this fraud. Elizabeth Holmes
Speaker 3: was praying a much more sophisticated investors.
Speaker 1: But I don't think she was preying on anyone. I
Speaker 1: really do believe, just like Sonny said, she was a
Speaker 1: zealous She believed she could make she could will this
Speaker 1: and do existence at all costs, which I'm not saying
Speaker 1: is a good thing, but at least she has some
Speaker 1: kind of noble intent at the end of the day,
Speaker 1: as horrible as it turned out, as many disgusting things
Speaker 1: she did to get there or try to get there,
Speaker 1: she really did believe there was a there there Whereas
Speaker 1: a regular scammer like Jenshaw, who's so similar to every
Speaker 1: other scammer under the sun. They know there's no there there.
Speaker 1: They're just gonna lie, cheat and steel to get as
Speaker 1: much money as they can in a short amount of
Speaker 1: time as they can get it and run away. So
Speaker 1: there's the difference. I don't think Elizabeth Holmes is a scammer.
Speaker 3: You make a good point. Elizabeth Holmes did not try
Speaker 3: to conceal what she was doing with fair Nose. In fact,
Speaker 3: it went the other way. She was as big and
Speaker 3: bold and public ash she could be, but behind the
Speaker 3: scenes she was concealing that none of it worked. She
Speaker 3: was concealing how the processes were happening and lying about
Speaker 3: it to continue to get money from investors. So there
Speaker 3: was some concealment there. When she was threatened to be
Speaker 3: outed that she was not actually using her machine and
Speaker 3: was actually manipulating other machines, those people were fired and threatened.
Speaker 3: The way she sent David Boyce after the whistleblowers is horrific.
Speaker 3: So there was concealment from Elizabeth Holmes in a different way.
Speaker 3: But yes, I do think she believed that these were
Speaker 3: reasonable boundaries to cross, and what's cracking a few eggs
Speaker 3: to make an omelet At the end of the day,
Speaker 3: because at the end of the day, I do think
Speaker 3: she believed she was going to revolutionize health care for everyone.
Speaker 3: But it was all lies and bullshit, and.
Speaker 1: There's a documentary series and a scripted series. But one
Speaker 1: of the things that stunned me she would put on
Speaker 1: the voice.
Speaker 3: And now we know it was all an act, because
Speaker 3: Elizabeth Holmes, in this reworking of her life for The
Speaker 3: New York Times has dropped the voice and dropped the act.
Speaker 3: It was all part of the con. The persona was
Speaker 3: all part of the con.
Speaker 1: But again I would argue, yes, it was part of
Speaker 1: that con. But she was doing it because she knew
Speaker 1: she had to sound, you know, for lack of a
Speaker 1: better term, less feminine, more masculine, to be taken.
Speaker 3: To your sea because she was a twenty year old
Speaker 3: college dropout and all of her professors said, sweetie, this
Speaker 3: can't be done the way you're saying it, and she went, no,
Speaker 3: it can be done. It will be done, and I
Speaker 3: will do it. So I think the argument we're having
Speaker 3: is was Elizabeth Holmes altruistically delusional into believing that what
Speaker 3: she was going to create at the end of the
Speaker 3: day would work, where Jenshaw knew at the end of
Speaker 3: the day, none of this was ever going to work.
Speaker 3: Sites were never going to work. Where Elizabeth Holmes was
Speaker 3: chasing down something she honestly believed would work, and everyone
Speaker 3: who was telling her otherwise were just you know, haters,
Speaker 3: non believers. Weren't drinking the kool aid. But doesn't that
Speaker 3: just make her a cult leader? Like at the end
Speaker 3: of the day, like this is what's going to happen.
Speaker 3: Everyone says it can't happen, and she's like, but it
Speaker 3: can if you just drink the green juice and believe me.
Speaker 1: I mean, so, if the shoe was on the other foot, right,
Speaker 1: let's say Jen Shaw was in Elizabeth Holmes position, there
Speaker 1: would be no Thearaohnos, there'd be no laboratory, there'd be
Speaker 1: no scientists, there'd be no prototypes.
Speaker 3: Right, because that's overhead. She would just be taking the money.
Speaker 1: She'd just be taking the money and making up another
Speaker 1: story why this is not here or that's not there,
Speaker 1: taking more money, taking more money. So again it's a
Speaker 1: you know, we're splitting hairs because ultimately both women did
Speaker 1: horrendous things and heard a lot of people.
Speaker 3: I think it's a great conversation though, about the different
Speaker 3: kinds of personalities and the different kinds of cons where
Speaker 3: Elizabeth Holmes had this. I mean, both of them have
Speaker 3: this larger than life personality. I find Genshaw more captivating
Speaker 3: than I find Elizabeth Holmes, but I think they both
Speaker 3: used the way that they could draw people in, different people,
Speaker 3: the way they could draw people in to perpetrate fraud.
Speaker 3: And Elizabeth Holmes knew she was perpetrating fraud. I just
Speaker 3: think she believed at the end of the day, somehow
Speaker 3: they would make it work and it would all be
Speaker 3: fine and all the eggs that were broken would just
Speaker 3: go away. Because that's really Isn't that how venture capital
Speaker 3: investing works. Isn't that how you do things when you're
Speaker 3: trying to create something new? You know, it's not really
Speaker 3: lying that it doesn't work, even though it was where
Speaker 3: Jenshaw knew it was lying, is what you're saying, and
Speaker 3: knew that at the end of the day it never
Speaker 3: would work out. There was never going to be a turnaround.
Speaker 3: That's your point exactly.
Speaker 1: It was a scam out of the gate. And because
Speaker 1: it bothers me that a lot of people throw this
Speaker 1: term con artist around, they call everyone a con artist,
Speaker 1: but you know, a con artist is a specific type
Speaker 1: of creature where they make plans to get money and
Speaker 1: it's all smoke and mirrors. Nothing really is true, nothing exists.
Speaker 1: It's all just a scam and you realize that and
Speaker 1: usually they get away. But they call Elizabeth Holmes a
Speaker 1: con artist. I don't think she is a con artist.
Speaker 1: She is a criminal. She lied and cheated investors, but
Speaker 1: she's not a con artist. Billy McFarland fire Festival guy,
Speaker 1: everyone calls everyone calls him a car You see him.
Speaker 3: More like Elizabeth Holmes, like I can pull it off.
Speaker 3: Just give me a little bit more time, give me
Speaker 3: a little bit more money. I can make it happen.
Speaker 1: I did a deep dive into Firefest. I do believe
Speaker 1: he really did think he could do it, and he tried.
Speaker 3: But at what point is delusion? I guess at what
Speaker 3: point is that criminal or not criminal? And that's no,
Speaker 3: it's absolutely criminal. I think he is criminal. What he
Speaker 3: did was criminal for sure, But he's not a con
Speaker 3: artist because if he were a con artist, he wouldn't
Speaker 3: have rented that eye pens or sandwich is. He wouldn't
Speaker 3: be trying to get music acts and sign all these
Speaker 3: Like I think he was just a bad businessman who
Speaker 3: got carried away with his vision like Elizabeth Holmes, and
Speaker 3: thought he could pull it off. If you just give
Speaker 3: him more money, more time, you could do it. And
Speaker 3: it's interesting because with Elizabeth Holmes, a lot of what
Speaker 3: her lawyers argued was really this isn't fraud. This was
Speaker 3: dogged belief and it doesn't amount to wire fraud because
Speaker 3: she believed what she was telling investors. She believed that
Speaker 3: she would get there. But what they showed is that
Speaker 3: she was also changing documents and manipulating data and lying
Speaker 3: about it, and those are the things that got her.
Speaker 3: But Elizabeth Holmes was not convicted of everything she was
Speaker 3: charged with, and so I think that the jury was
Speaker 3: also split because they were like, no, she was lying
Speaker 3: to investors, but she wasn't really lying to client to patients,
Speaker 3: and so there was more of a split there. But
Speaker 3: she was also charged with a lot more crimes and
Speaker 3: a lot more money than we saw Genshaw be charged
Speaker 3: with because the people that Elizabeth Holmes was defrauding, she
Speaker 3: was defrauding them out of millions at a time where
Speaker 3: Genshaw was defrauding your more normal, average, everyday person, where
Speaker 3: when she's defrauding them for thousands and sometimes tens of thousands,
Speaker 3: it's all that they have, so she's taking a larger
Speaker 3: percentage of the individual's net worth even though it's less
Speaker 3: of a chunk of money, where Elizabeth Holmes is defrauding
Speaker 3: less people of much larger sums of money. And it's
Speaker 3: interesting in the federal sentence and guidelines, the amount of
Speaker 3: money taken and the amount of victims and the age
Speaker 3: of the victims all kind of calculate into a sentence.
Speaker 3: And at the end of the day, Elizabeth Holmes just
Speaker 3: got binged for over four hundred million in restitution. But
Speaker 3: she's only serving eleven years, the same as chrisly and
Speaker 3: jen Shaw is serving six. So you know, the amount
Speaker 3: of time that they got is not so different when
Speaker 3: you look at it at the end.
Speaker 1: Of the day. And Elizabeth Holmes went to try she did,
Speaker 1: which you know, just adds more weight to my belief.
Speaker 1: She really did believe she was about something bigger than herself,
Speaker 1: and she was. There is a certain I love your
Speaker 1: phrasing altruistic narcissism. Yes, I think that's what it was,
Speaker 1: but it wasn't a She didn't intend to scam anyone.
Speaker 1: She really tried to create this thing and she ended
Speaker 1: up scamming a ton of people to make this happen,
Speaker 1: and it never could happen.
Speaker 3: She thought it was justified, and it was justified beyond
Speaker 3: her pocketing the money is what you're is what you're
Speaker 3: kind of seeing there. I love this conversation so much
Speaker 3: because it's it really did stick with me when her
Speaker 3: her partner called her a zealot, that was the words
Speaker 3: in his It struck me. I've never seen any one
Speaker 3: putting forth a sentencing memo to help someone and say
Speaker 3: that they had like a religious fervor to make it happen.
Speaker 3: Because then I was sitting there reading it, going wait,
Speaker 3: is Elizabeth Holmes just like a scientific cult leader? Like
Speaker 3: this is wild to me that this is how he's
Speaker 3: likening her. But everyone who knew her in their sentencing
Speaker 3: memos pinned on what you're talking about. She believed that
Speaker 3: this would work at the end of the day, even
Speaker 3: though everyone was telling her no, even though it was
Speaker 3: an unreasonable belief, even though there was no objective criteria
Speaker 3: to support the belief. It doesn't matter. She believed it,
Speaker 3: and then she likened herselves to people like Steve Jobs,
Speaker 3: who said, you know, oh, you can't make a cell
Speaker 3: phone like that, and he's like, I believe that we can.
Speaker 3: She's like, I'm doing the same thing. I'm making an iPhone.
Speaker 1: And in a way, I mean yeah, I mean yeah.
Speaker 1: If you know anything about Apple and Steve Jobs, he
Speaker 1: is kind of Elizabeth Holmes.
Speaker 3: That's how she saw herself.
Speaker 1: It worked out for him, right because ultimately he was
Speaker 1: able to piece together the right team to create the iPhone,
Speaker 1: to create the iPod, but she never could. Who knows,
Speaker 1: ten years from now, they may invent this thing that
Speaker 1: can do all these tests from a drop of blood.
Speaker 3: The investors wanted it to be true. The Faohnhos investors
Speaker 3: wanted this to be true. They wanted to be a
Speaker 3: part of something that would change the world. And I
Speaker 3: think they overrode their own red flags because they wanted
Speaker 3: it to be true, the same way Jenshaw's victims overrode
Speaker 3: their own red flags because they wanted this thing that
Speaker 3: was going to change their own life, this opportunity to
Speaker 3: make some more money in retirement, or make a little
Speaker 3: bit more money from home to harness. The power of
Speaker 3: the Internet to make their lives a little bit better.
Speaker 3: All of these victims just wanted it to be true.
Speaker 3: So at the end of the day, did Genshaw ever
Speaker 3: believe it would be true for them? Maybe not. Did
Speaker 3: Elizabeth Holmes believe she could make it true for them?
Speaker 3: Maybe so?
Speaker 1: Yeah, I think absolutely she did.
Speaker 4: She named her daughter invicta Latin for invincible or unconquered.
Speaker 5: I mean, it says it all, kind of does.
Speaker 1: That's Victoria Thompson a journalist and executive producer for ABC News.
Speaker 1: She co wrote and produced the Dropout podcast for ABC
Speaker 1: Audio and was an executive producer on the Dropout TV
Speaker 1: series for Hulu. She's been immersed in the Elizabeth Holmes
Speaker 1: saga for the past five years.
Speaker 5: Some of it will never leave my brain as long as.
Speaker 1: At this point, I imagine you know more than most
Speaker 1: about Elizabeth Holmes. You know more than anyone else on Earth,
Speaker 1: I would wager, maybe not.
Speaker 4: On Earth, but Rebecca Jarvis and Taylor Dunn, who I wrote,
Speaker 4: reported and produced both seasons of the podcast with they
Speaker 4: know just as much. One of the more surreal experiences
Speaker 4: was when we were covering the trial and doing this
Speaker 4: weekly series on the sort of minutia of the week.
Speaker 5: The scripted series was shooting.
Speaker 4: In Los Angeles, so we were kind of going from
Speaker 4: San Jose, California, to Los Angeles and you know, seeing
Speaker 4: the real Elizabeth Holmes in this small courtroom and going
Speaker 4: to the set where it was being portrayed by actors.
Speaker 4: Sort Of an interesting byproduct of that is we were
Speaker 4: getting all this discovery covering the trial, this cash of
Speaker 4: five thousand text messages between her and Sonny. So we
Speaker 4: would go then back to the writers and say, oh
Speaker 4: my gosh, you know, we've just gotten all these very
Speaker 4: interesting text messages and you know nicknames they would call
Speaker 4: each other that. Then they would go back into the
Speaker 4: writer's room and start incorporating into scenes.
Speaker 5: So that was pretty cool.
Speaker 1: I'm sure they loved it, like the fresh original ideas
Speaker 1: they could just ping off of and create something amazing.
Speaker 5: I think they loved and hated it. They were like,
Speaker 5: oh my gosh, this is so overwhelming.
Speaker 4: But but yes, I think that ultimately they were happy
Speaker 4: to have some, you know, the real life boards.
Speaker 1: Were you surprised Elizabeth Holmes went trial. I'm sure her
Speaker 1: attorneys explain to her and I learned this doing this
Speaker 1: podcast for the past few years that, especially at the
Speaker 1: federal level, if you're federally charged, there is a nearly
Speaker 1: one hundred percent chance you will be convicted if you
Speaker 1: go to trial. They have such a high percentage of
Speaker 1: convictions because the Feds have unlimited resources and they're not
Speaker 1: going to charge you unless they know they can win.
Speaker 1: So most people in Elizabeth Holmes's position would plead guilty
Speaker 1: to get half or less of prison time she ended
Speaker 1: up getting. Did it surprise you she decided to roll
Speaker 1: the dice and go to trial?
Speaker 5: It did not surprise me.
Speaker 4: I think she has an unwavering kind of confidence and
Speaker 4: you know her innocence, and really thought she was going
Speaker 4: to be let off and I quit it of all counts,
Speaker 4: So honestly, I would have been far more shocked if
Speaker 4: she had pled.
Speaker 1: What's your take, do you think Elizabeth Holmes is a
Speaker 1: con artist?
Speaker 4: Well, I agree with you that at the beginning, she
Speaker 4: certainly did not intend to go out and defraud anybody.
Speaker 4: She really was incredibly ambitious. She had real drive to
Speaker 4: change the world with this revolutionary device that would help
Speaker 4: people around the world through healthcare and really be kind
Speaker 4: of a true game changer. For mankind, you know, and
Speaker 4: I think she believed that to her core. As the
Speaker 4: prosecution often I would say in their arguments, where she's
Speaker 4: trying to create the product that will ultimately be what
Speaker 4: her vision, you know, intends. But she had this deadline,
Speaker 4: which was getting into the Walgreen stores, and she ran
Speaker 4: out of money, so as they kept saying as a refrain,
Speaker 4: she ran out of time, she ran out of money,
Speaker 4: and she started to lie.
Speaker 5: She then doctored pharmaceutical reports.
Speaker 4: She did things that you know she is now convicted
Speaker 4: of that led investors to believe a product was operating functionally,
Speaker 4: and you know, not just doing a number of tests,
Speaker 4: but doing on hundred of tests. The ambitions in the
Speaker 4: beginning were very noble, and then I do think she
Speaker 4: was rightfully guilty of fraud by the end.
Speaker 1: Absolutely, she absolutely is a criminal. She is guilty. She
Speaker 1: did bad things. But in my mind, what differentiates her
Speaker 1: from a regular con artist like jen Shaw or any
Speaker 1: other is out of the gate. Jen Shaw's intention was
Speaker 1: to scam people.
Speaker 5: Oh yeah, I would not say they are the same
Speaker 5: at all.
Speaker 4: I mean, Elizabeth is a true like wide eyed dreamy
Speaker 4: at the beginning was yes, her intentions were pure.
Speaker 5: You know, there were red flags.
Speaker 4: Though, even on the early end, Like one of our
Speaker 4: favorite people we interviewed was Phyllis Gardner as this extraordinary
Speaker 4: professor who you know, invented time release technology and pills
Speaker 4: and genuinely did change, you know, healthcare for the world.
Speaker 4: When Elizabeth went to see her as a sophomore at Stanford,
Speaker 4: and Phyllis Cardner was just like, what are you talking
Speaker 4: about this? You know, it would be great if, as
Speaker 4: she's told us, you could create a car that can
Speaker 4: fly or a car that can roll on square wheels,
Speaker 4: but that's not a real thing. And Elizabeth, you know,
Speaker 4: kind of famously brushed her off and just said fine,
Speaker 4: on to the next and went to another professor, Channing Robertson,
Speaker 4: who became one of her great champions, ended up being
Speaker 4: on her payroll. She did have this this noble vision
Speaker 4: for sure, but she also had this kind of to
Speaker 4: quote her favorite Yoda, there is no try, only do.
Speaker 4: So she really had this tunnel vision for success. You
Speaker 4: know that I think astounded people around her, even at
Speaker 4: nineteen years old.
Speaker 1: And that is one trait both Elizabeth Holmes and Jen
Speaker 1: Shaw and every other con artist have in common. This bravado,
Speaker 1: this ego, this belief that they can do X y
Speaker 1: Z despite everyone telling them they can't or shouldn't. They
Speaker 1: know they can. They think they're above the criticism. They
Speaker 1: think they're above the rules, above the law. So she
Speaker 1: did have that early on, like I could do this.
Speaker 1: They don't know what they're talking about.
Speaker 4: Yeah, she's a complicated person, like everybody. You know her
Speaker 4: childhood and how that may have led to this, this
Speaker 4: person that she became. This image of Elizabeth on the
Speaker 4: running track in high school and even though she's the
Speaker 4: slowest person on the track and she's lagging behind everybody, but.
Speaker 5: She refuses to get off the track until.
Speaker 4: She finishes the race, you know, way after everybody else's
Speaker 4: already off the track. She has this like, I will
Speaker 4: not stop. It does not matter what the naysayer say.
Speaker 4: A kid who was maybe a little bit of an
Speaker 4: outsider in high school, didn't fit in socially, wanted to
Speaker 4: prove herself. She wanted to prove to the world, to
Speaker 4: her family, to her peers, her parents, her professors, that
Speaker 4: you know, she was extraordinary.
Speaker 1: Would you categorize Elizabeth Holmes as charming?
Speaker 4: I mean, it's impossible that she's not because the way
Speaker 4: she was able to convince some of the most brilliant
Speaker 4: minds in the world that she is this true visionary
Speaker 4: people who supported her till the very end. Everyone talks
Speaker 4: about this incredible charm she had, kind of you know,
Speaker 4: looking at you right in the eyes and really just
Speaker 4: just absolutely captivating a kind of intellectual way.
Speaker 1: And I do think those are the only two things
Speaker 1: Elizabeth Holmes has in common with jen Shaw and other
Speaker 1: con artists is a the ego and b this charm
Speaker 1: offensive that they can disarm people, intelligent people, people who
Speaker 1: quote should know better. They ignore the red flags, they
Speaker 1: ignore any skepticism they might have, and they just get
Speaker 1: on the ride and go with her.
Speaker 5: You know, the list is insane.
Speaker 4: The Henry Kissinger's, the Bill Frists, William Cohen, you know,
Speaker 4: George Schultz, former Secretary of State, just an unbelievable array
Speaker 4: of people.
Speaker 5: One of the more.
Speaker 4: Interesting parts the trial for us with seeing some of
Speaker 4: these men, mostly men, get up on the stand and describe,
Speaker 4: you know, sperience and their first time meeting Elizabeth. And
Speaker 4: you know, even when the first Wall Street Journal article
Speaker 4: came out, they still didn't doubt her one bit. Just
Speaker 4: hearing like, you know, Wayne Millica and Stephen Bird, Jim Maddis,
Speaker 4: I mean Mad Dog Maddis, Like one after the next
Speaker 4: of these guys getting on the stand and talking about
Speaker 4: her charm and her you know, just how unbelievably impressed
Speaker 4: they were with her was pretty unbelievable.
Speaker 1: It really does prove that famous Mark Twain quote true.
Speaker 1: It's easier to fool people than it is to convince
Speaker 1: them they've been fooled. You know, even in the face
Speaker 1: of that Wall Street Journal report, these people believe Elizabeth
Speaker 1: Holmes in light of evidence she's a fraud. And I
Speaker 1: think it's human psychology. At the end of the day.
Speaker 1: It's not so much that they steadfastly believe in her
Speaker 1: in light of criticism and evidence against her. It's that
Speaker 1: it's hard for them to admit they were wrong. They
Speaker 1: don't want to admit they're wrong.
Speaker 5: Absolutely, Yes, it's humiliating.
Speaker 1: Yeah. In season two of Queen of the Khan, we
Speaker 1: profiled con artist Lizzie Mulder, and I managed to speak
Speaker 1: to Even after Lizzie Mulder went to federal prison and
Speaker 1: served time and pled guilty, she had this ardent supporter
Speaker 1: who was a dog trainer who I talked to you,
Speaker 1: and she's like, you all are just making this up
Speaker 1: about Lizzie Mulders. She's innocent, she didn't do anything, you all.
Speaker 1: And I was just stunned that even after years of
Speaker 1: this woman pleaded guilty and served her time and got out,
Speaker 1: you still believe her. And then I was schooled by
Speaker 1: FBI criminal profiler Canvas DeLong, who explained to me that basically, yeah,
Speaker 1: it's hard for some people to admit they were wrong.
Speaker 1: So it's not so much that they believe the con artists.
Speaker 1: They just can't come to terms with themselves being wrong
Speaker 1: because in their mind, if they're wrong about this, they
Speaker 1: could be wrong about everything. I don't want to face that,
Speaker 1: so they hang.
Speaker 5: On, Oh my gosh. Absolutely, do you have.
Speaker 1: Any theories or opinions on why Elizabeth Holmes wanted to
Speaker 1: go to that federal prison in Brian, Texas where Jen
Speaker 1: Shaw is at.
Speaker 4: I mean, I don't, just because we haven't spoken to
Speaker 4: anyone that has any insight into that.
Speaker 5: You know, they call it club fed and.
Speaker 1: It's very similar to the federal prison where Martha Stewart
Speaker 1: served time.
Speaker 4: As prisons go, it seems pretty manageable.
Speaker 5: I'm sure those sort of things laid in.
Speaker 1: I didn't know they call it club fed to me
Speaker 1: that Engender's kind of a it's an easier place to
Speaker 1: do time than other prisons. I do remember pictures and
Speaker 1: photographs of Martha Stewart every now and then in the
Speaker 1: prison yard outside hanging out with people, and by Martha
Speaker 1: Stewart's accounts, if I recall, she had somewhat of a
Speaker 1: pleasant time there. She made friends, she taught people how
Speaker 1: to so right.
Speaker 5: She was like Olmec Captain's.
Speaker 4: I heard those Martha Stewart accounts too, But I've heard
Speaker 4: other prisoners say it's not like that. It's a prison,
Speaker 4: that there are some unsanitary conditions. But I've definitely heard
Speaker 4: accounts that run the Gamut.
Speaker 3: Jen definitely wasn't taking in the overhead that Elizabeth Holmes
Speaker 3: had Emily D. Baker again, because we've seen in all
Speaker 3: the reporting and the reporting from John Carey ru that
Speaker 3: Elizabeth Holmes was burning millions a month in trying to
Speaker 3: make this happen in payroll and in overhead and in scientists.
Speaker 3: She was running a business, and then as it wasn't
Speaker 3: going well, started lying about what was happening to float
Speaker 3: it versus Jenshaw, who didn't seem to ever take on
Speaker 3: that kind of overhead. All of Jenshaw's overhead went to
Speaker 3: people to milk money out of victims.
Speaker 1: Exactly, selling things that don't really exist. Yeah, that's the difference.
Speaker 1: A con artist sells things that don't exist, and Elizabeth Holmes,
Speaker 1: Bill and McFarland selling the dream they believe they can
Speaker 1: do it.
Speaker 3: Yeah, selling hope.
Speaker 1: I think when Elizabeth Holmes goes to prison and meets Jenshaw,
Speaker 1: and based on Jenshaw's ideation of putting a show together,
Speaker 1: in my mind, I suddenly see that old ethel Merman
Speaker 1: song anything you can do, I can do better. I
Speaker 1: can do anything better than you. No you cant, Yes
Speaker 1: I can't. No you get you know, like them doing
Speaker 1: a take on that for the inmates Entertainmentay, I see it.
Speaker 3: I can also see both of them commiserating how they
Speaker 3: were wronged, because I think Jenshaw sees herself more like
Speaker 3: an Elizabeth Holmes, like I was wronged. These are marketing practices.
Speaker 3: Maybe I lied in telling people how much they're going
Speaker 3: to make. I think that's how Jenshaw wants to see herself,
Speaker 3: and I just am very interested to see what happens
Speaker 3: here and if we end up seeing Jenshaw and Elizabeth
Speaker 3: Holmes becoming becoming besties while they are in custody together,
Speaker 3: and whether we see that shared in the stories Genshaw
Speaker 3: is doing on Instagram set up a website that you
Speaker 3: can pay monthly for access. I mean, who's giving Jenshaw
Speaker 3: their credit card number anymore? But you could pay monthly
Speaker 3: for access to kind of her diaries in custody. And
Speaker 3: she's been sharing those things on Instagram as well, and
Speaker 3: it's really interesting. But people are still curious. People are
Speaker 3: still interested, and they want to know the rest of
Speaker 3: this story. And I want to know if Jenshaw and
Speaker 3: Elizabeth Holmes become become buddies in custody or not. I mean,
Speaker 3: Elizabeth Holmes has had the you know, the New York
Speaker 3: Times article that's trying to reframe her is Liz, and
Speaker 3: so does she want to kind of steer clear and
Speaker 3: keep her head down? But you need friends in custody.
Speaker 1: Only time will tell. Make sure you listen to our
Speaker 1: next Bonus episode where I interview reality television impresario Carlos King,
Speaker 1: who actually produced several seasons of Housewives and the incredib
Speaker 1: Kate Casey, a true Housewives expert and host of the
Speaker 1: podcast Reality Life with Kate Casey. What's the latest? You
Speaker 1: both have heard about what Jenshaw has been up to
Speaker 1: in federal prison.
Speaker 3: She's running that joint.
Speaker 5: I think she's from her her bottom, bitch.
Speaker 1: That's the woman, ry K She's found her bottom, bitch.
Speaker 5: You haven't seen the end of Jenshaw.
Speaker 3: She will be on reality television shows for the rest
Speaker 3: of her life.
Speaker 1: If you're enjoying Queen of the Con, click that share
Speaker 1: button and send it to your friends and family. Also,
Speaker 1: if you can leave us a five star review, reviews
Speaker 1: really help other listeners find us. Queen of the Con.
Speaker 1: The Unreal Housewife is a production of AYR Media and iHeartMedia,
Speaker 1: hosted by me Jonathan Walton. Executive producers Jonathan Walton for
Speaker 1: Jonathan Walton Productions and Elisa Rosen for AYR Media. Written
Speaker 1: by Jonathan Walton, segment producer Gregory Harvey, Senior associate producer
Speaker 1: Jill Peshesnik, Coordinator Melina Krolevsky, Edited by Justin Longerbe Audio
Speaker 1: engineer Justin Longerbee Studio engineer Maximo Abraham, legal counsel for
Speaker 1: AYR Media, Johnny Douglas, executive producer for iHeartMedia, Maya Howard