Privileged sociopath Elizabeth Holmes is pregnant, delaying her trial? WTF?

The BBQ Pit
81

It’s not quite the same pitch, and she doesn’t lower her larynx to make it sound deeper. It sounds to me like she’s letting her voice naturally go up and back down.

Her current way of talking stays lower, never going up. To my ear, it sounds ridiculously unnatural in tone, due to the forced lower larynx position (most people speak with a neutral larynx). It is not the timbre of someone whose voice is naturally that low, but like she’s going as low as she can.

And, in the first clip, where she’s speaking to a large audience, her voice actually cracks a bit, in a way that sounds a bit hoarse to me, which is something that often happens if you push your repeatedly push your voice too low. It’s stressful on the voice.

Her tone is just completely different, in a way that sounds like she deliberately is trying to talk lower to sound more authoritative. I suspect she’s read the studies about lower voiced women being taken more seriously, but didn’t know when to stop. I definitely think she took it too far, to where it sounds affected.

82

It seems bordering on tautological to say “her low voice is a possible voice for her” because of course it is - whether she’s using a forced lower tone or a more natural set of intonations, it still has be her voice, sounds formed by her vocal cords. So the fact that you hear the “normal” clip including an example of the low pitch doesn’t convince me she’s not forcing herself to maintain a fake baritone. It just proves her voice is capable of a range of pitches. In most of the video available on line, I discern her artificially restricting herself to the lower part of the range.

Anyway, it’s all speculation. It’s like if we were to both eat some pureed soup and I said, “I taste carrots in this!” and you said, “well, I don’t!” One possible explanation would be that my palate was more discerning, and another would be that you were right and my senses were leading me astray. Without definitive evidence beyond our differing perceptions, neither of us can be 100% sure what’s objectively true.

83

That video is kind of bullshit. First, they claim she’s using a baritone - obviously she’s nowhere near a baritone. Then they play a speech where she’s hoarse and raspy and compare it to literally 10 words in everyday conversion (2 of which were back low again). I actually compared the tones she used on my piano to make sure I wasn’t wrong (I am also extra sensitive to pitches and can tell you by ear what notes she’s speaking) - they’re the same frequency range in her speech as at the very end of the interview clip. In the beginning of the clip she was raising the pitch in a mocking, almost laughing casual conversational tone - for 8 syllables. The sentence is “No one has it, well, if I use traditional words-” You’ll notice they cut it off right there mid-sentence, because the pitch went back down. The pitch is higher on “no one has it, well, if I use” then it drops back down on “traditional words” to the same level as the speech. But she hits the same high note in both the speech and the interview. What woman (and many men) don’t raise their pitch when they’re speaking in regular conversation, versus a speech?

First, “several octaves” is absurd. That’s Minnie Riperton territory. Second, squealing 5 words in a higher pitch isn’t evidence of anything.

She may be faking her low voice, but there’s nothing that is remotely convincing in what’s been presented. So far, only 2 short carefully chosen and cut-off clips, and a guy recalling her saying 5 words in a high pitch.

84

Agreed. (I had the same reaction the first time I read that sentence.) It was just hyperbole, but if I were his editor I would have objected as the book overall was plodding and avoided hyperbole. I found the quality of Carryrou’s writing disappointing overall, though his research seems impeccable. And “baritone” is probably technically incorrect (I don’t have perfect pitch so I can’t say exactly where her voice is falling, just that it seems suspiciously low). It’s at the very least contralto, though - of that I am sure, since my own speaking voice is at the bottom of the alto range (per a music teacher with perfect pitch) and hers is definitely lower than mine.

You seem oddly invested in insisting that Holmes is not forcing her voice to sound lower that it would if she spoke naturally. Is there some reason for that? Do you think she’s innocent?

As for me, even before I read John Carreyrou’s book the evidence suggested to me that she’s a fraudster. I guess I should be happy, from a feminist standpoint, that society has advanced to the point where a woman can pull off such a large-scale hoax, but I have nothing but contempt for her. The fact she sounds - to some of us - like she’s faking her voice is merely a convenient opportunity to focus my disdain on one aspect of her behavior. But I don’t really care if she’s faking it or not. Do you?

85

My impression from the book matches what @Dewey_Finn reports, that it was impossible to fulfill the promises with that technology. In fact it seems IIRC that no technology could work. For example some tests cannot be done on blood obtained from a pinprick and requires a blood draw from a vein and not from capillaries.

86

That’s a really crappy thing to say, and I would have expected better from you. So we’re not fighting ignorance here? If she’s guilty of horrific crimes, why pile absurdities on top? When media makes absurd claims with so little to back it up, it can diminish the reporting of the actual crimes she did. Do we no longer care about accuracy in reporting?

I never said she didn’t force her voice to be lower. I specifically said she could be. But what was presented sure didn’t show it. It was pathetically flimsy. The View pointing out two clips where her voice is measurably almost the same and saying “See! See! She’s faking it!” is really stupid gossipy “journalism”.

I care about bad reporting, especially when it’s done on the side of good. Do you?

87

Didn’t mean to be “crappy” at all and I’m not sure why a frank observation struck you that way - in the Pit, of all places, where insults roam free; had I meant to be crappy I’d have used much stronger language, for sure.

In any case, I was genuinely curious. Apologies if I came across as “crappy”. Anyway, you’ve answered my question - your investment in pushing back against the proposition that she has deliberately lowered her voice comes from your observation that the evidence to support this is, in your mind, weak/ridiculous, and that upsets you because you feel that poor reporting dilutes credibility and attention on the part that matters, namely her very harmful false claims.

Does that sum up how you feel?

I don’t agree - I base my speculation that she’s faking her voice on what my ears tell me. In saying that, I don’t feel that I am harming the case against her in any way. But your position, if I’ve accurately characterized it, seems reasonable.

FWIW, I was disappointed in the Carryrou book. I don’t think it harmed the case against Holmes - in fact, as far as I can tell his journalistic integrity and pursuit of the truth may have been instrumental in bringing her criminal behavior to light before she did even more damage.

However, from the standpoint of writing craft, I was surprised at how bland and plodding it was, and how little attempt it seemed to make to get beneath the surface and look at possible triggers for her behavior - or to bring any of the characters to life as people. I guess that is a book for another day, though.

PS - Pet peeve of mine, nothing personal: I roll my eyes whenever a poster says to another, "that was a bad/low/inappropriate/nasty/undignified/take-your-pick thing for you to post; I’d have expected better from you!" It always sounds so … I dunno, schoolmarmish? Deliberately designed to cause pain and annoyance? Not sure why I find it so irritating. It’s probably just me.

88

Close.

No, that would be the actual frequencies of the tones she spoke, based on having perfect pitch and a piano which confirmed her tones in each clip. Can’t really see any other way to make that call than to actually quantify what the actual vocal frequencies are, not just going by what it might seem like. Especially with that weird, deep hollow timbre she uses which makes it feel even lower.

You asked whether I thought she was innocent of her crimes when I disagreed with the assessment of the pitch of her voice. That’s an insult to intelligence and I said it was a crappy thing to say. I may be overly obsessive about nitpicky details, but that’s a far cry from being “oddly invested” in her imaginary innocence.

89

No, her voice didn’t drop a few octaves—but I am used to that level of hyperbole about voices. I sometimes wonder if it’s become so common that some writers don’t know it’s an exaggeration, and thus don’t know what an octave is.

My main point in linking the video was to show that her tone in that second clip, with all those higher pitches, is very different from how we normally hear her speak. Even if she does occasionally hit those lower notes in her more natural-sounding speech, she also naturally also uses a lot of higher notes. When she uses only the low notes, she sounds to me like she’s doing a deliberate affect.

Furthermore, I was originally a vocal music major in college, and I recognize the sound of her voice bottoming out, and of the effect that young singers often use to try and make their voices sound lower. That’s why I mentioned her lowered larynx. Normally it’s something guys do, and it has been called the “barritone bark.”

I will also say that her affected voice is indeed in the barritone range. I know because I can easily mimic it. I can match her pitch without being anywhere near my head voice.

If you don’t hear it, @needscoffee, that’s fine. But it seems very obvious to me and other posters.

On a somewhat related note, are other posters feeling more cranky in the last little bit? I thought it was just me and my current insomnia and anxiety, but I’ve been noticing these misunderstandings where feelings get hurt more and more.

Note, I’m not picking sides or attacking anyone here. It’s just something I’ve been wondering.

90

Why is everyone getting so wound up about her speaking lower in interviews? That’s an absolutely normal thing to do if you have a high pitched natural voice- it’s something people get taught to do in public speaking classes. It’s certainly something I’ve consciously done when dealing with people who I don’t think would take me seriously otherwise, due to being moderately young and female. Politicians have been doing it for yonks- it’s no more a sign of being an untrustworthy git than just being a politician in general.

Surely the massive fraud is more the issue here than a bog standard vocal coaching technique?

91

Because she sounds really strange when she does it. If it’s a standard technique, you’d expect a whole lot more women to sound like she does. But I can’t name a single one. (Even naturally lower voiced women like Martha Stewart or Caitlin Doughty sound very different.

I am fully aware of the advice to women to speak in the lower part of their register (and not just for interviews). But such advice doesn’t mean using only the lowest notes you can hit, with the lower larynx position that creates a dopey sound. Her voice clearly cracks and is a bit hoarse in the first clip of the video I linked (which was not an interview). Hence why I argued she’d probably taken the conventional wisdom too far.

It plays very much into the whole idea that everything about her comes across as obviously manufactured. It plays right into the narrative about her, that she’s so phony that we wonder how anyone fell for her nonsense. And that she is a narcissist.

If she had any friends who could talk to her about it, or even some people under her who she would listen to, someone could have told her she was overdoing it, that it sounded unnatural. It’s similar to how Trump dresses poorly, has a bad tan, and bad hair. It’s all indicative of the same type of person.

Anything that plays into the narrative people have of someone gets a lot of attention. “She’s such a fraud that even her voice is fake” plays quite well.

92

That is correct. This comes up all the time in this situation, someone is revealed to be a fraud and then people will examine their life and try to describe everything they do as part of the scam. So her voice sounds a little different in two video clips a few seconds long each therefore that must have been a key element in her plan to steal a billion dollars, and we should focus on that instead of the established crimes and outright lies. And don’t you dare suggest it’s merely coincidence because then you are defending her.

93

The whole thing is just mind-boggling.

So many people were fooled, and, apparently, we incapable of changing their minds. Look at George Shultz and his grandson(? IIRC). By that time it was obvious that Theranos was a house of cards, a total fraud, but Shultz was so invested he ostracized his own grandson rather than admit he was duped.

I just can’t see why the investors wouldn’t force a test. “Here are two samples of blood, that we have analyzed the normal way. Run them through the machine and let’s compare results.” I’m not surprised Holmes would balk at such a test, obviously, but why did the investors go along? Or Walgreens?

There’s something about the human mind that so many people can go along with something so obviously bogus. It explains cults and anti-vaxxers and trump sycophants. But it seems there’s nothing that can be done.

eta: The concept of a small portable lab would be great. If Holmes could have just accepted they needed more blood, these machines might (might!) have worked, and we’d be better off and she’d be rich. And not on trial.

94

George P Schultz was only one of several high-powered board members. There was also James Mattis, Bill Frist, William Perry and Henry Kissinger. (Mostly former diplomats or military leaders rather than people with a clinical or technical background.) And yes, the story in the documentary of how Schultz believed her over his own grandson was astonishing.

95

Several major factors were involved.

The concept wasn’t “obviously bogus” from the get-go. Some of the basic technology had been developed (i.e. in microfluidics) and there was a bunch of skilled engineers and qualified laboratory scientists/techs working at Theranos, which gave it a patina of respectability.

Holmes by all accounts had an extraordinarily persuasive personality.

This was a period when “Silicon Valley start-up” had a ring of giant fortunes to be made. It was compelling for some to think that a woman could succeed in what had been a male-dominated environment.

Once a few famous people and Walgreens were on board, it was assumed that Theranos had to be credible, and even more dupes were willing to invest huge sums in the company.

What could’ve been done (and should be done in the future) is to demand solid, reproducible science instead of promises, and for quicker and more comprehensive government oversight.*

*it’s ironic that the Wall St. Journal, while deserving great credit for its investigative reporting that exposed Theranos, has an editorial side that constantly gripes about how regulation stifles innovation, including in the sphere of health care.

96

Yeah, when I had a really big blood panel run last month to figure out why my RBCs were all wonky, it was eight Vacutainers of various colors they took.

97

If your blood comes out various colors, I think I can see why your RBC’s are wonky.

98

In Bad Blood, John Carreyrou talks about how Elizabeth deliberately avoided the investors who were more familiar with the heath industry. That should also have been a red flag.

99

Certainly Walgreens should have done a better job of verifying Theranos’ claims before committing so much to the deal.

100

It’s been a while since I read the book, but IIRC, the consultant they hired to look into it was ignored. The CEO(?) wanted the deal and they got the deal.