I agree the proof for defrauding investors was less arguable. However there were still clear indications that she should have known the tests offered to patients were unreliable. For example, Schultz told her, before resigning, that it was not OK for Theranos to continue re-running their benchmark tests until they got a passing result (kind of like shaking the magic 8 ball until it, on the fourth shake, correctly answers the question “Is today Sunday?” — then selling it as an oracle). One employee flagged it for her attention that females were getting results that should only be possible if they had prostates — and she dismissed this as well! There was other evidence introduced during court that showed she knew the tests her company was doing for customers were not as accurate as she claimed, too. I would have loved to see her found guilty on these counts as a result, and I would also love to hear about the jurors' reasoning for not doing so.