This week, Elizabeth Holmes returns to the stand, presenting herself as a confident CEO with a noble mission who also naively took experts at their word. She meticulously details how she built her business -- even admitting to having doctored those pharmaceutical documents -- but implies over and over again that she relied on information given to her by scientists, doctors and board members to solidify her understanding of where her company stood. Will it be enough to convince a jury that she had no intent to defraud investors? Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Previously on the Dropout.
The prosecution called its final witnesses before resting its case, among them, a patient who received troubling results from a Theranos HIV test and a journalist whose damaging interviews with Elizabeth were played for the first time in court.
All of this is stuff you can do.
Yes.
Yeah.
It's so incredible.
And in a literal final hour shocker, the defense called Elizabeth Holmes to the stand.
My first reaction was surprise.
But as I thought about the reason she might do it is she needs to convince the jury herself.
And so it may be her only chance of getting acquitted, even though it runs some very high risks.
This week, Elizabeth is back in the hot seat.
Can she convince a jury?
From ABC audio, this is the dropout.
Elizabeth Holmes on trial.
I'm Rebecca Jarvis.
Episode 15 reframing the narrative there was a buzz of anticipation in the air at the start of this week.
By 02:00 a.m.
on Monday, November 22, a line was already forming outside the courthouse in San Jose, growing steadily throughout the cold night.
It was snaking around the block.
By the time the doors opened, around 730 in the morning, dozens of journalists and curious citizens were all there to see and hear one woman testify.