Shank read the jury a message sent by sunny at the time, we need to respond to him now and cut him monday. They're going to get rid of the lab director who actually raises questions, who has concerns, shank emphasized. And who do they replace him with? They replace him with mister belwany's dermitologist, who works five hours over the course of seven months, and doctor sawyer, who works even less. Shank then reminded the jury of the defence's biggest theme, business failure is not fraud. If miss holmes had just allowed therinos to fail, said shank, if she had not chosen to go down the path of fraud, then i think that statement would apply. But what happened here is, when faced with the tential of business failure, miss holmes chose a different path, and that's where the fraud comes in. Shank went on to address the continued focus by the defense on elizabeth's youth. The defense also, i think, would like to freeze time. Have you think of miss holmes as the 19 year old college drop out that started therenos the entire time she was at theranos? But the truth is, by the time investors who ested in 20 13 or 20 14 were interacting with her, she was nearly 30 and had been ceo for a decade. At that point. They were not interacting with someone who had inexperience running her company. He said, thernos didn't need more experience to avoid fraud. Here, he continued, they didn't need one more m d or one more phd to avoid the fraud. It wasn't a question about experience. They needed a ceo and a c o o who interacted with people honestly, who told them the truth about what therinos could and what it couldn't do, shank said. Shank also challenged another argument from the defence's opening statement, that the government was looking at the case through a dirty lens, that just wait and you'll see the evidence in the case, and you'll see that there's a lot of just innocent events. He reminded the jury the witnesses they'd heard from were former employees elizabeth hird investors, elizabeth recruited patients. Elizabeth advertised to partners like walgreens in safe way. Elizabeth negotiated with you're not being asked to look at the facts of this case through the government's eyes, said shank. You're being asked to hear and evaluate the testimony of witnesses that, at least at one in time, the defendant herself selected. Then shank addressed elizabeth's own testimony. The judge will read you jury instructions, and they'll cover things like bias and credibility of witnesses. And you can conclude that there is no witness that testified in this case, that has more bias, more interest in the outcome of the proceedings than the defendant herself. That means that you should look sceptically at anything that she testified about that was self serving. He pointed out that elizabeth's attorney, kevandowney, showed emales indicating elizabeth received positive information from scientists, and therefore anything she communicated wasn't meant to defraud. The problem is that's inconsistent with the facts and the evidence that you've seen, said shankyou also seen email after email, example after example, where she's told negative things, poor developments, unfortunate things that are happening at thernos, and those things are not being communicated to investors. She's deciding what's the kind of information to be communicated and what isn't. Shank then framed it another way. If there was no intent here, if they were just told whatever she knew, would expect there to be a random distribution of some statements saying positive things that she heard and some statements saying negative things that she heard. But when the witnesses, the victim, investors, testified, you heard favorable and false, over and over, a favorable thing about therenos. That wasn't true. There's another word for that, shank said, and that's intent. She's choosing which are the kind of facts to communicate and which are the kind of facts that should not be communicated. Shank read a portion of elizabeth's testimony about the light bulb going off in her head after problems with the lab and sunny emerged, following the c m s audit. There's a fundamental problem with that testimony. Shank explained that testimony is not true. You've seen example after example of miss holmes being told by mister belwany and by her own brother about problems in the lab. Shank then went on to address elizabeth's most explosive testimony, the purported abuse she suffered at the hands of her former boy friend and c o o, sunny bellwany, claims that outside of the court, sunny has firmly denied. Shank addressing the jury was adamat. You do not need to decide whether that abuse happened in order to reach a verdict. The case, he said, is about false statements made to investors and false statements made to patients. You do not need to decide the question about whether the abuse happened. Here's caroline pelise.