'You Can See Everything'

The movie is amazing. It is very long and for my part I reached a point where I was like: "It's over now, right?"

But it's not. That's okay. It's precisely at that point when the real cleverness kicks in.

That said: It didn't move me at all on the question of her innocence. I confess I get my hackles up on this topic, because if seems like if you scratch the surface of anyone claiming she shouldn't be in jail, it always seems to come back to "well she's a nice mom." 

That's not how the rule of law works, though, right? Same rules, same punishment — parental status (and other kinds of status) aren't meant to matter. 

And if there's one thing the movie cemented for me it's that she's not really an honest person and doesn't even seem to have a very strong grasp on the concept of honesty.

Here's a small spoiler: At one point early in the film she says that she never lies about anything. Ever. She never has. Not any kind of lie.

Even Nathan Fiedler, for all his strangeness, gets that this is a crazy thing to say.

So I came away from the film more ill-disposed toward Holmes (and, obviously, her husband, but that's a whole other topic). 

From: *You Can See Everything* (no spoilers)

Of course Holmes should not be in jail (house arrest?), and this movie cements the view I already held.  I come away from this movie with a consistent sense of her, rather than with the feeling we can never know a person.

Tyler Cowen disagrees with me, though, and he always seems fairly sober and even-keeled.

One of these days, I guess I should hunt for a steelman of why Holmes shouldn't be in jail. Not that my opinion will change anything.

Not that this gets there, but I asked the robot to summarize the internet's take on pro-jail side and the anti-jail side (I asked for three sentences for the former and five for the latter — since it goes against my take). 

Here's what the robot gave me (I did not edit it):

People who consider Holmes's conviction just argue that she knowingly misled investors about Theranos's technology, crossing the line from entrepreneurial optimism into fraud. They see a substantial prison sentence as proportionate to the scale and persistence of the deception and the financial losses it caused. They also argue that meaningful punishment deters corporate fraud and shows that wealthy, well-connected founders face consequences like everyone else.

The strongest argument against imprisoning her accepts her guilt but questions whether incarceration is necessary or useful. Supporters of alternatives argue that a first-time, nonviolent offender could face meaningful punishment through house arrest, restitution, community service, and restrictions on future business activity. They contend that her public exposure and conviction already provide substantial deterrence, while additional years behind bars offer diminishing benefits. They also argue that fraud sentences can give excessive weight to dollar losses without adequately considering someone's individual circumstances or likelihood of reoffending. The harm to her children adds a further argument for an alternative sentence, grounded in a principle that should apply to other parents as well.

—Brady Dale
October 19, 2026

Versions · current v2 ·
RSS