Cross is done, and we’re onto redirect. Schenk says he has just “a couple of questions.”

Back to some of the website language that came up in Edlin’s testimony. “Occasionally, a venipuncture may be required based on the lab order, but this is uncommon, and our aim is to eliminate this entirely.” Mosley: “I don’t believe I knew this at the time.

We’re looking at an archived copy of the Walgreens website. A prominent heading: “Goodbye big, bad needle.” A footnote all the way down the page notes that testing could happen with a finger stick or venous draw. Mosley says he doesn’t remember seeing this language.

We’re returning to due diligence. Wade asks if Mosley looked at the Theranos website, and Mosley responds, “I can’t imagine that I didn’t look at the website.”

Kissinger is quoted in this Parloff article saying that “there is no performance associated with” Elizabeth, which is ironic, given that her public persona — the voice, the turtlenecks, the red lipstick, etc. — was such a huge part of the Theranos myth!

Mosley testifies that the article was “a very compelling story” that was “absolutely” impactful when he read it. Wade’s going through the article page by page.

We’re back to the Parloff article! Mosley sent it to the C.E.O. of the DeVos family office.

Holmes spoke on an hour-long panel called “Game Changers.” (Wade wanted to publish more of this document, which listed all of the different speakers at the 2014 BDT conference, but Judge Davila said it wasn’t relevant.)

We’re discussing an investor conference where Mosley met Holmes for the first time. Wade asks if Mosley would characterize it as a “Woodstock for private family offices,” the best line of the day thus far; Mosley declines but agrees that it was for “high net worth individuals.”

Wade is now talking about the Pfizer report. He has Mosley confirm that he thought Pfizer had written the report, but never actually directly asked whether Pfizer had.

Wade is asking about Mosley’s characterization of Theranos’s “national retail footprint,” noting that the Walgreens partnership was only in CA and AZ — seemingly trying to show that Mosley may have also overstated Theranos’s reach.

Mosley also wrote: “The most extensive evidence supplied regarding the reliability of the Theranos technology and its application is a Study Report prepared by Pfizer based on a clinical cancer treatment trial.” As we know, Pfizer didn’t prepare it.

We’re back to the memo Mosley wrote. He referred to a Johns Hopkins review that concluded that the technology “is novel and sound.” Mosley also noted the Walgreens partnership. Wade asks: Would you expect Walgreens to do due diligence? Mosley responds: Yes.

Wade is walking us through the binder Theranos gave Mosley to review. Included in the binder: a line claiming that “Theranos technology is able to perform the full menu of laboratory tests,” along with around 200 pages of supporting material.

Still, in a 9/2/14 memo Mosley wrote to Kissinger, he wrote: “There is substantial data and other information attesting to the quality, performance and reliability of the Theranos technology and equipment.” Wade highlights this line.

Wade asks Mosley to confirm that he hadn’t done substantial research into the company at this point, and Mosley counters that he doesn’t think he would have had a way to.

Mosley testifies that his 2014 analysis of Theranos came from printed materials provided by the company and his conversations with Holmes. Wade notes that Mosley didn’t mention media in his outline, but Mosley said he had “certainly” read media articles about the company.

He was also connected with the Oppenheimer family ($20 million) and John Elkann ($5 million), who were friends of Kissinger’s but not Mosley’s clients.

Mosley was VERY well-connected with Theranos’s investors. Per a slide entered into evidence, he was the attorney for the Walton family ($150 million invested), DeVos family ($100 million), Cox family, ($100 million), Andreas Dracopoulos ($25 million), Henry Kissinger ($3 million).

Good morning! I am back in the courtroom for the Elizabeth Holmes trial. After some pretrial arguments about whether testimony from a patient called BB should be excluded (no decision yet disclosed), the lawyer Daniel Mosley is on the stand to continue his cross.

The jury is dismissed for the day. Chaotic vibes today, between the guy who snapped a photo in the courtroom, a stifling 76 degree room and a worked up person in the hall bugging journalists about their parking dispute.

Mosley’s description of what he does at BDT is comically vague. “I’m involved in the management of the firm, I run the New York office. We advise and work with high net worth families and I do that type of work.”

I imagine this will be a contentious cross-examination. We’re already talking third-generation billionaires and levels of white shoe law firm prestige.

Theranos’s investment docs had a provision for mandatory redemption, i.e., the company could buy back shares at any price at any time. Holmes reassured Mosley that wouldn’t happen.

We see a list of Theranos’s risks in Mosley’s memo to Kissinger. Prosecution asks why it doesn’t list the risk that Holmes could give inaccurate descriptions of her company’s technology. “I did not believe it was a risk,” he says.

Mosley testifies that he liked that Elizabeth Holmes’ shares in Theranos had 100x voting power of the other investors. “She was obviously a visionary that had created this company and developed the technology and having her in control of the company was a good thing.”

Mosley wrote a memo to Henry Kissinger about Theranos’s technology with a strong, strong endorsement. He believed fully in the conclusions from the pharma validation reports.

Byron Trott’s firm, BDT, threw a conference in Chicago in 2014, where Mosley introduced Holmes to the DeVos family, the Walton family and the Cox family — all clients of his.

We talk about the revenue projections and Schenk pre-empts the defense’s argument that projections are about the future and not supposed to be accurate by asking Mosley about that. Since it was October, Mosley expected the $140 million revenue projection for the year to be pretty close.

It is incredible how much mileage Holmes got out of one Fortune article. I think every investor who has testified said they read it. I guess prosecution keeps bringing it up because we know the author Roger Parloff will soon testify.

We run through the entire rigmarole we have now seen many times: listing out the specific and clear promises Theranos made to investors about its technology and the investor testifying they invested on that information.

We’re looking at illegible handwritten notes Mosley took and it feels like deciphering ancient scrolls

Holmes snail mailed Mosley a thick stack of presentations in 2014. We discuss lines like: “The company plans to be private for the long term.” “Theranos has grown from cash from its contracts for some time.”

The Web of Powerful Men goes on: We see an email where Mosley offers to connect Holmes to the Walton family. Mosley says Holmes wanted investors who were “high quality families.”

Next witness is Dan Mosley, a lawyer and guy about business. He invested $6 million in Theranos after Henry Kissinger, his client, introduced him in 2014. He now works for Byron Trott, Warren Buffett’s banker who was discussed during the DeVos testimony.

Theranos’s work with S-P fell off when the company merged with Merck. We see emails from Holmes to Cullen trying to move the validation forward with no response from Cullen. Kline make the final point that S-P never told Holmes about her concerns.

Kline, who is a lot folksier than Wade, asks Cullen to repeat that she never voiced her concerns with Theranos to the company because it was awkward. Apart from one email, is Cullen aware of any emails from S-P or Theranos asking for more information? “No.”

(Note: This was 2009.) “There was insufficient technical detail for us to be able to evaluate the technology.” She says Holmes answered almost exclusively, even questions directed to others.

Cullen testifies she never objected to the validation protocol. We see the invoice for Theranos’s work with S-P with the objective of “comprehensive validation of the Theranos cytokine panel under F.D.A./I.C.H. guidelines.”

Kline asks about the validation work that S-P did with Theranos was sufficient. “It hit the requirements, but at the end of the day, the execution would not have been in alignment with F.D.A. requirements for validation.”

John Kline is leading a cross-examination. Cullen testifies that S-P was impressed with the demo they did of one blood test on a Theranos machine they were given.

In the second version of this document, the conclusion adds the word “more” to the line about the results’ accuracy. Cullen says again she doesn’t agree with that conclusion. End of direct exam of Cullen.

We see the infamous validation report that featured Schering-Plough logo. Cullen says she did not agree with the report’s conclusions and no one at S-P said the docs were accurate.

Cullen says she didn’t say anything about it at the meeting because “um, it’s awkward.” Unfortunately I can’t see Holmes’s expression but I have a feeling if they run into each other in the bathroom later it’ll be even more awkward!

Cullen adds that there were no direct answers to questions and the questions were fairly technical, so the answer should be fairly technical and direct. “There were what I’d describe as cagey responses or attempts to redirect to other topics of discussion.”

We see a calendar invite and agenda from a May 5 meeting. This was the first time Cullen met Holmes in person. Cullen said she asked many questions and “was dissatisfied, quite honestly, with the response to the questions.”

Peterson is excused. Next witness is Constance Cullen. Cullen worked at Schering-Plough. They asked her to participate in evaluating Theranos’s technology. They beta tested a few machines and she visited Theranos’s offices.

It’s usually pretty clear in the gallery who is a reporter and who is a member of the public. There are always a few people in suits who I can’t quite place. The guy who took a photo had a suit on. He is, unsurprisingly, not here now.

Uh… we went on a break because someone walked into the back of the courtroom and took a photo. That person is now being chastised by the judge.

Theranos told RDV in October of 2014 that it would do $140 million in revenue that year. It had zero. Prosecutor Robert Leach: “Did you in anyway dream that revenue for that year would be zero?” She says no, “projections should be somewhat close.”

Peterson pushes back: “You’re trying to measure our sophistication as an investor when we weren’t given complete information.” Wade moves to strike and Judge Davila tells Peterson to wait for Mr. Wade’s questions.

Wade shows Peterson the legal agreement for the investment and goes through all the normal disclaimers — projections can change, the investment was speculative, RDV (the DeVos firm) was accredited and sophisticated, etc. The “you should have known better” argument.

Some points of contention: When the investment decision was made. Whether Peterson had gone to Theranos’s website to see it advertised CLIA lab tests. What Theranos said about its military work. Comments Peterson made in prior depositions that contradict her testimony today.

Wade keeps asking questions meant to trap Peterson over prior comments, she keeps offering more detailed answers, Wade keeps striking her answers from record. After striking at least five, the judge scolds Wade: “Some of your questions are lend themselves to an explanation.”

Right out the gate prosecution objects to an email defense is using to refresh Peterson’s memory that she wasn’t on. Judge Davila: Anything can be used to refresh a witness’s recollection — a shoe, a sock…. Defense attorney Lance Wade: I’ll keep my shoes on, your honor.

US v. Holmes continues today with cross-examination of Lisa Peterson, who managed the DeVos family’s $100 million investment in Theranos.

Court for US v. Holmes is cancelled for today, broken water main. Back Tuesday! Weekly “wrap-up” of one day of testimony coming soon.

Now a court marshall is literally hovering over my shoulder watching and listening to me type. There is an overflow room but the sound is awful and unreliable. So.. .I think I will save my keystrokes for my own notes and limit my tweeting for the rest of today.

It went on and on, with Wade even reading notes from a deposition by RDV lawyers from years prior that used the term unicorn and Peterson insisting, “I would never use that word, unicorn.”

Wade: Do you know what a unicorn is?

Peterson: Can you explain it?

Wade: You’re the investment professional.

Peterson: It’s not something we normally invest in.

Fantastic unicorn content with defense and witness quibbling over the definition of a unicorn.

Lots of discussion about Dan Mosley, who was a lawyer at Cravath. Some documents were emailed via personal Gmail accounts, Peterson said, because “We didn’t know what his role was in all of this. We didn’t want to get him in trouble.”

Lance Wade (Holmes’s lawyer) is not playing nice with Peterson, grilling her on whether the DeVos family actually ever read her memos and her past comments under oath in depositions about that fact.

This is an interesting trojan horse to play the jury videos that clearly and succinctly summarize what we have learned so far about Theranos’s problems and also showing Holmes saying the buck stops with her – “I’m the founder and CEO of this company.”

Judge Davila has overruled objections to playing clips of Holmes on Mad Money and we are watching the part where she says “This is what happens when you work to change things. First they think you’re crazy, then they fight you, then you change the world.”

We are looking at Theranos’s revenue projections, including that bold $990m for 2015 (with a $230m profit). Peterson said she did not know that Theranos had zero revenue in 2013 and 2012.

Recall that a Pfizer exec testified it had nothing to do with that validation report. It never validated Theranos’s tech. But Theranos put its logo on the report and showed it to investors.

Prosecution shows Peterson the falsified validation report we have heard so much about. “Did you believe this report as prepared by Pfizer?” “Yes.” Peterson says that endorsement was a big factor in investing.

A familiar rundown of Theranos claims to investors. Its technology had been “comprehensively validated over the course of the last 7 years by 10 of the 15 largest pharmaceutical companies” and subjected to proficiency testing and audits from regulatory agencies.

We see a memo that hits this point again, stating that Theranos’s goal was to find investors “with less emphasis on liquidity and more emphasis on long term capital appreciation.”

“She was hand picking 5-6 private families to invest in her company. … She was inviting us to participate in this opportunity.” Peterson says Holmes didn’t want large PE firms/institutional investors b/c they wanted Theranos to go public and she wanted to stay private.

Interesting point about power dynamics of investing in high risk startup unicorns: “Did you feel like Theranos was selecting you as an investor?” Peterson: “Very much so.”

When Peterson’s team asked Holmes about the risks of investing in Theranos, she said the risk was in the “execution” of the Walgreens rollout. Was there a discussion of technology risk? Peterson says no.

We see an email from Jerry Tubergen, C.E.O. of RDV, to colleagues. He attached the infamous Fortune cover story, writing “This morning I had one of the most interesting meetings I can recall with the women profiled in the attached Fortune magazine article.”

Lisa Peterson has taken the stand and explained her role at RDV Corporation, the family office of the DeVos’s. She manages their PE fund investments and co-investments.

She asked to work on the Theranos deal bc she’d had some healthcare investing experience.

Needless to say this is extremely stressful for the media here. Members of the press now policing bystanders to follow the rules (silence phones etc) so as to not piss off the judge.

(First of all the juror who finds the typing distracting should really wear the hearing aids provided by the court. Second, this is a pandemic problem. Jurors are spaced out and some are sitting in the first rows of the audience.)

Ugh once again the jurors are frustrated with loud typing from the press gallery. The judge says if he gets another complaint he will ban