Going the ‘Twinkie Defense’ one better? While this Editor was enjoying a much-needed break from the Insanity of the World, hurtling across the wires was the revelation that Elizabeth Holmes’ pricey defense attorneys have prepared a defense for her that includes evidence “relating to a mental disease or defect or any other mental condition of the defendant bearing on the issue of guilt.” Interpreted, her mental state may have affected her intent and judgment in her business dealings.
According to the filing, the defense is introducing testimony from Mindy Mechanic, Ph.D., a clinical psychologist and professor at California State University at Fullerton. According to her bio, her “work focuses on the psychosocial consequences of violence, trauma, and victimization with an emphasis on violence against women and other forms of interpersonal violence. Her work has addressed the mental health consequences of violence, such as Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder and depression as well as other important physical and social health outcomes.”
The defense attempted to introduce this evidence without further examination by the Federal prosecution. Unfortunately, US District Judge Edward Davila did not agree. Ms. Holmes will be examined by two experts for the prosecution: Daniel Martell, Ph.D., a forensic neuropsychologist for the forensic litigation consulting firm Park Dietz & Associates, and University of California San Francisco psychiatrist Renee Binder, MD. Over the objections of the defense, the examination will be videotaped. The trial will commence with jury selection on 9 March 2021 [TTA 27 Aug].
Most of our Readers who care about this will be wondering, after they’ve picked themselves off the floor laughing at the above notion, that any person with a mental defect of this type could have fooled the savviest Sand Road VCs, Stanford/Hoover Institution luminaries, an admiral, a Marine general later Secretary of Defense, and Rupert Murdoch for years, to the tune of nearly $1 bn. That they should be gulled and fooled is disturbing enough. What is equally disturbing is the desperation of the defense to attempt an ‘insanity defense lite’ that sources and justifies Ms. Holmes’ inability to discern right from wrong.
This then proceeds to exactly what was the ‘interpersonal violence’ or post-traumatic stress that caused her judgment to warp quite this way. Was it her upbringing, which apparently was a bit upper-middle-class flaky–the ‘it’s not High Anxiety, it’s parents!’ reason? Was it a head trauma (the Howard Hughes defense), drugs, or surgery gone wrong? Did Sunny get Blue (in more than one way) on her? Stock up on the popcorn–la scandale Theranos has just gotten even more interesting. CBS Bay Area, Bloomberg News, Forbes, MedCityNews
A historical footnote. The term ‘Twinkie Defense’ came into usage in 1978 during the defense of the murderer of San Francisco mayor George Moscone and the better-known supervisor Harvey Milk. While not used per se by the defense team, the testimony of a psychiatrist for the defense that the murderer excessively consumed junk food, including Twinkies, as an indicator of depression and a sign of diminished capacity was hyped by the press as the ‘Twinkie Defense’. The term has passed into the vernacular. Ironically, both trials are occurring in the Bay Area. Hat tip to The Crime Report.