Law&Crime Sidebar - 13 Bombshells in 'You Can See Everything' Doc

Episode Date: October 19, 2026

WARNING: Spoilers AheadLance Oppenheim and Nathan Fielder's documentary You Can See Everything examines convicted Theranos founder Elizabeth Holmes in her Del Mar, California rental home before she begins serving her federal prison sentence. The film raises crucial questions about whether Holmes knowingly defrauded investors or truly believed her own technology worked, especially as she and her partner, William "Billy" Evans, launch a new healthcare startup. Law&Crime's Jesse Weber has all the details.HOST:Jesse Weber: https://twitter.com/jessecordweberLAW&CRIME SIDEBAR PRODUCTION:YouTube Management - Bobby SzokeVideo Editing - Michael Deininger, Jay Cruz, Christina O'Shea, & Christina FalconeScript Writing & Producing - Savannah Williamson, Heather Berzak & Juliana BattagliaGuest Booking - Alyssa Fisher & Diane KayeSocial Media Management - Vanessa BeinSTAY UP-TO-DATE WITH THE LAW&CRIME NETWORK:Watch Law&Crime Network on YouTubeTV: https://bit.ly/3td2e3yWhere To Watch Law&Crime Network: https://bit.ly/3akxLK5Sign Up For Law&Crime's Daily Newsletter: https://bit.ly/LawandCrimeNewsletterRead Fascinating Articles From Law&Crime Network: https://bit.ly/3td2IqoLAW&CRIME NETWORK SOCIAL MEDIA:Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/lawandcrimeTwitter: https://twitter.com/LawCrimeNetworkFacebook: https://www.facebook.com/lawandcrimeTwitch: https://www.twitch.tv/lawandcrimenetworkTikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@lawandcrimeSee Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

You can see everything. This is the movie that is taking the nation by storm, and I will tell you for good reason. I saw it. I'm going to tell you right now, it raises some very important warnings about intent, credibility, control, trust, all in connection with Elizabeth Holmes, the convicted fraudster of Theranos. We are breaking down Nathan Fielder's new film to ask the question, who's telling the truth? Welcome to Sidebar, presented by Law and Crime. I'm Jesse Weber. So I've seen you can see everything.

The film currently in theaters that everyone, everyone is talking about, directed by both Lance Oppenheim, Nathan Fielder. Fielder are also stars in the film. And it's all centered on Elizabeth Holmes. And I'm going to say a phrase that I'm sure you've already seen a lot of people who have seen this movie say, I'm still processing what I just saw. I am.

I'm still thinking about it. I'm still trying to understand it. I'm still processing what I just experienced. Truly for me, it was one of the most incredible films, let alone documentaries I've seen in the last several years. And honestly, I've never seen what I just saw. I don't say that lightly. Now, what we're going to do here on sidebar

is a little different than what we usually do. And to be clear, this is going to be full of spoilers, full of spoilers, okay? Fair warning, if you haven't seen it yet, you know, don't watch this, okay? I am going to spoil the big moments in this film. Now, what I want to do is I want to look at this documentary from a legal lens, because what Holmes says and does in this movie, I feel very much mirrors, or maybe I should say relates to what she was accused of doing and what she was convicted of. Okay, so here's the thing. This may be the closest that we're actually going to see to her testifying. She faced a federal criminal trial. There were no cameras. There were no recording

devices. We never saw or heard for ourselves how she said the things that she said, right, what she testified to. And that's the theme of this movie, the way that I saw it when I watched this, criminal intent, credibility. Did she really knowingly, intentionally defraud investors of hundreds of millions of dollars? Or did she really believe what she was selling? Did she not intentionally lie. Was she manipulated or was she the one doing the manipulating? And it's questions like those that drive this entire movie. So let me explain what I mean. I'm going to get into specific examples. So in case you don't know, just a backstory here because it puts it all into context. Elizabeth Holmes was the founder, CEO, chairman of the blood testing company, Theranos. And according

to prosecutors, while she claimed for years that she had this functioning technology, these products that could run any blood test all through just a finger stick, rather than from a traditional vein draw, it didn't work. And they say she knew it didn't work and defrauded investors. The question surrounding this really came to a head in 2015 when there was this Wall Street Journal expose. Then the SEC filed charges in 2018,

and a grand jury indicted her on criminal charges. Now, the government alleged that Holmes knew that this blood testing analyzer didn't work, that she ended up secretly using, conventional machines to get the results but led investors and the public to believe that Theranos was using its own product, was using its analyzer. And they say she fraudulently induced dozens of investors to invest hundreds of millions of dollars. And just to give you an idea of who Holmes was and what she was accused of, okay? This is what the Department of Justice

posted on their website. Quote, she used direct communications, marketing material, statements to the media, financial statements, models, and other information to potential investors and induce investments. Homes consistently provided glowing but false representations to investors and potential investors about the analyzers' progress and capabilities. She falsely represented to investors that multiple major pharmaceutical companies had comprehensively evaluated Theranos and had validated its technology, and she provided investors with reports bearing logos from pharmaceutical companies falsely suggesting the pharmaceutical

companies endorsed Theranos. Homes misrepresented to investors that Theranos had a profitable revenue generating business relationship with the U.S. Department of Defense and that the Theranos technology had been deployed to the battlefield to treat wounded soldiers. In truth, Holmes knew the technology was never deployed in the battlefield and that Theranos had acquired little revenue from military contracts for trial runs of the analyzer. Trial evidence demonstrated that Holmes also misrepresented the dire financial status of Theranos to investors and its prospects for future earnings. By the end of 2014, or stock in Theranos was valued at more than $4 billion,

She enjoyed a lavish life while carrying out her fraudulent scheme, living in a $15 million mansion, and traveling in a Theranos paid private jet. She gained a national profile adorning the cover of Fortune, Forbes, Inc., glamour, and the New York Times Style Magazine. Holmes dined at the White House, joined the board of fellows of Harvard Medical School, and was named by time as one of the 100 most influential people in the world. But as the government describes, her scheme not only deprived investors of vast sums of money, it also placed numerous others at risk of great physical harm. Wanting to paint Theranos as a legitimate enterprise,

Holmes offered Theranos blood tests to the public, and Theranos' flawed technology was used on patients with serious medical conditions. As a result, Theranos sent out inaccurate results to patients being screened for cancer to women monitoring their pregnancies, and to one victim who was led to believe she had the precursor virus to AIDS, among other examples.

Okay, as I said, she was indicted. Holmes went to trial. She was convicted after a four-month trial in federal court of conspiracy to commit fraud on investors and three counts of committing fraud on individual investors, which involved wire transfers totaling more than $140 million. And she was acquitted of other charges, including those related to fraud on individual patients. That's important. It comes up in the movie. And she was sentenced to 11 years in prison, although I'll tell you a little bit about what we can expect when she might get released. I'll tell you that a little bit later on.

But it brings us to this film, okay? Now, to be clear, before the first trailer launch, before this was even announced, we had no idea. We had no idea, the public, that Nathan Fielder and his crew were documenting the life of Elizabeth Holmes. To be clear, Holmes hadn't spoken to the media before this filming since 2016. So this is a big deal. And this film is split into two parts. So first, you see Nathan Fielder, who's a comedian, he's a documentarian, he's a filmmaker, actor. you see him and his crew filming and documenting homes, her fiancé Billy Evans, and their kids

living together in this Del Mar San Diego rental home out in California 34 days before she surrenders herself to prison, FPC Brian out in Texas. And at one point, Fielder even moves in with them, okay? That's only part of the film. The second half of the film picks up about two years later when Holmes is in prison, and you look at what Billy Evans is up to. And the circumstances by which how this film even came about plays a central role in this documentary.

It only comes up later on in the documentary, and I'm going to get into it because it goes into the theme of, Can You Believe, Elizabeth Holmes? Now, in a press packet that I received for the film, Nathan Fielder said in an interview about this documentary about this film, quote, one thing that was fun for me is that I couldn't let my guard down.

I was very present, trying to understand if I was being toyed with. When I watch the footage back, I see myself genuinely conflicted and struggling to make sense of these moments and what was happening. And that was what was remarkable about watching this. Look, Nathan Fielder's a comedian, he puts himself in these kind of awkward situations. You don't know if it's a schick or not. But like, I'm watching this and I'm looking at his reaction to Elizabeth Holmes and Billy Evans. And even I'm looking at him saying, I think he's like genuinely confused as to what he's hearing and what he's trying to make sense of. So I'll give you an example. In the movie, and remember, this is all about what she was accused of, right?

Like defrauding investors, lying to people. In the movie, she claims she never lied. Like she never knowingly misrepresented something or didn't tell the truth about something. She even tells Fielder, I've always tried to say what I believe. Now, that is a shocking thing to really believe. I mean, come on, she never lied. He presses her on it. And then she couches it more in the film about oh, her criminal case, those allegations. But then you couple that with this fascinating scene where Fielder is shown the blood testing device, right? The thing at issue. And Fielder actually says the Holmes and it's really funny. So this is the famous scam device. And he claims he was just referring to how people see it. But it was actually really funny. The whole theater laughed when he said

that. So Holmes and Evans, they take out this device, the blood testing device, out of their garage. They show it to Fielder. And in the documentary, Fielder asks, homes. So this works. And in the film, she stands by the technology, despite everything. And Fielder makes the point, well, if this technology works, if this product works, you wouldn't be in trouble, right? Right. The whole charges are based on the premise that this technology, this product didn't work, and you made people believe it. But this is key. In the film, Fielder and Holmes get into a back and forth about whether the device actually currently works or whether she made it seem like it theoretically could work.

And this is because of a statement that she had made in the past, quote, the device can run any test. Is that a lie? Does she see it that way? Because she seems to suggest, well, once the chemistry and the process was in place, it would work. But is that what you mean by can? You see the issue, right? Is she saying it can work?

because how is she saying it can work if the process and the chemistry aren't in place? And that's about the meaning of words and can. And from a legal point of view, that was key to what she told investors. And after that exchange, this is when Fielder does an experiment. He does an experiment with Holmes to see just how her mind works. And he plays her the famous Abin and Costella routine, right? Who's on first? Holmes, in the film, after watching that, she doesn't get it.

She doesn't get the joke. She doesn't know the name of the person who's on first. She doesn't get it to who. Doesn't click. And this is when Billy Evans jumps in and says, look, that's just how her mind works. It's different. But it goes to this larger point about not only how words matter, but how people perceive what you say. And perhaps her mind doesn't work like others.

Or maybe she's just not being honest. But it does raise the question, did she have criminal intent to, defraud or did she believe that she was telling the truth and she didn't get it. She didn't know how her words would be perceived. The counter argument would be, wait a second, you'd have to believe that she was delusional as to the status of her technology and company and was completely left out of the loop and didn't understand what was being presented. I mean, that could be a hard pill to swallow. Now here's the thing. She apparently believes in this venture so much and even claims that she believes this is her purpose in life is that you find out in the film that

she and Evans are starting a new healthcare startup business. They basically reference it as Theranos 2.0. And when you watch that, I'm thinking, she was just convicted of all these crimes related to this kind of industry and sentenced to 11 years in prison. Why go back to this? Why take the risk? I've never seen that before, unless she really doesn't believe she didn't anything wrong or is going to act differently and say things differently and be more careful with what she said last time. But Holmes says in the film, quote, from wherever I am, I'm going to continue to work inventing, even if it's inventing from a cage. So it makes you wonder, does she really believe she did nothing wrong? I mean, she claims in the film she didn't do anything

wrong. She doesn't know how she's in this current position. She says, I wish I knew. criminal intent. Did she knowingly deceived? Did she knowingly conspire? That's a criminal agreement with others, right? Does she not remember what she said to people? She was apparently miced up during filming for 12 hours or longer, letting field her document it all. You know where the title of this film came from? You learn that she sent him a text saying, you can see everything. He even asks her, are you worried about me seeing something that might make you look bad? I mean, why are you agreeing to this? And that becomes a question throughout.

Why would she agree to any of this? Wouldn't a guilty person who at the time of filming is working on her current appeals, not want to be asked questions, not say something that could jeopardize her legal case, not say something that could be used against her? And yes, it's our understanding that the mics are cut when she was on the phone with her lawyer. There were certain things she couldn't talk about because of her appeals, but still, I'll say there was one moment even when you can hear bits and pieces of a conversation with Holmes on the phone, seemingly asking what her life in prison is going to be like, the schedule, the environment, so forth, she starts to cry. Actually, you hear arguments in the film from her and Evans as to her legal case. They seem to reference arguments that mirror the arguments that her attorney is making in her appeal.

So, for example, in the appeal, again, I think you kind of hear this in the film. they referenced it, I believe, where Theranos's lab director testified at her trial, they make the argument in the appeal that this was improper, that he was improperly testifying as an expert regarding how the blood testing machines didn't work. And she made other arguments in her appeal too, like how she didn't intend to deceive investors. By the way, our understanding is her appeal has reportedly been denied by the courts in the past. But the counter argument is, and Fielder addresses this with Holmes right in the beginning, So why is she agreeing to this documentary?

Well, is she agreeing to this documentary for strategic purposes? He says that an insecurity of his or concern is that she may feel, because Nathan Fielder is just a comedian, that he might not be educated in the science, and she may be picked him to craft a positive narrative about her in a way that he really can't challenge. But he says straight up that he really researched her, read all about her, read about her case, He says, in his view, there is a ton of evidence to support the charges. So he lets her know that. He can't be toyed with.

But here's the point. Midway through the movie, you start to say, or at least I did, is there more to this that meets the eye? And that's when you get to this idea, wait a second, Elizabeth Holmes, an apparent victim of rape, is she being manipulated by men? Let's not forget what her defense was a trial. Holmes took the stand and said she was abused by her business. partner, co-defendant, lover, Ramesh, Sunny Balwani, the number two of Theranos.

He, by the way, is serving time in prison. This is a man almost 20 years older than her. She claimed that he exerted control over her, influence over her, including saying she needed to be more like a man, that he allegedly verbally berated her, and that all this alleged abuse affected her rational decision-making. She had said on the stand, quote, he had taught me everything I thought I knew about business, and he was the best business person that I knew. I didn't question him in the way that I otherwise would have.

And that was referenced in the movie, too, her relationship with him. And you look at that and you say, really, really? No. Doesn't make sense. After all, she was convicted. Jury didn't believe it, right? But wait a second. We didn't see her testify.

Yeah, we saw reporting on what she said, but we didn't see it. We didn't hear it for ourselves. And then I watched this movie. And something happens in this movie. You see this relationship between Holmes and Billy Evans. And assuming they aren't putting on an act, and more on that a little bit, there appears to be a theme suggesting he's taking advantage of her or manipulating her. This is from how they first even met, how they got together.

This is, you know, he met her after her company started to fall apart after the expose shortly before she was indicted, to what is going to be known as the infamous egg scene. So at one point in the film, Elizabeth Holmes is like whisking eggs in the kitchen, and he just comes over and grabs the ball and starts doing it in a more rapid motion. It's very, very small, but Fielder clocks it and asks why he did it. And while Evans suggests that he's helping her, the way it can be perceived by audiences, at least I was hearing in my theater, is like, is that a way of him exerting control over her? And that gets amplified to when Holmes is in prison.

And you find out from Billy Evans himself that he has power of attorney, that he's operating her ex account, that he's making posts that are arguably not what Holmes would say, even though he claimed 80% of the posts are from her, and that he's even using an AI likeness, recreation of Elizabeth Holmes in all different ways. And at one point, Evan says how, quote, I can literally do anything as Elizabeth Holmes. And there becomes a part where a Fielder even confronts Evans about all this and even talks to Holmes in prison face to face to see if she knows about what Evans is doing and is it okay with all this. And there's even a part of the movie when Evans cuts off a conversation between Nathan Fielder

and Elizabeth Holmes' dad. It's kind of tense. And I'll tell you, there is a very tense moment where Fielder is interviewing a guy in 2025 who's in business with Evans. And this guy in this interview starts to talk about where Theranos went wrong. and Evans jumps in and cuts off the interview. Fielder was not happy, tense back and forth. And then later on, Evans even says he always carries a gun,

that he wants revenge on people. So what you're seeing, this idea is, uh-oh, who's Elizabeth Holmes involved with? And I mean, Nathan Fielder even asked skeptical questions about why would he want to originally get involved with Elizabeth Holmes and stay with Holmes after all of this expose, after all this is going on, and after she was formally charged?

So while Fielder asks Evans, wait, were you concerned that maybe she was manipulating you because your family has money? Then you wonder, is he the one exerting control over Holmes? Does he have an agenda? That idea of how much is Elizabeth Holmes aware of or participating in all of this, that is key to the film. And this culminates. This was a big spoiler, okay?

Nobody had any idea this was happening. we didn't know she was a part of the film. This culminates in the arrival of actress Amanda Seifrein. Okay, this is the person who portrayed Elizabeth Holmes in the Hulu series, the dropout. She is not making a cameo in this. This is a big twist. She is effectively a co-star in this documentary. And she kind of plays like a side investigator to Nathan Fielder.

And at times when certain moments between Nathan Fielder and Elizabeth Holmes weren't recorded, they weren't filmed, it's Amanda Seyfried who actually fills in and acts as Elizabeth Holmes. So she's reprising her role in these recreated scenes with Nathan Fielder. It's so meta. And again, to be clear, it's all based on Nathan Fielder's recollection of those events, but it is so meta watching this. I mean, it's one thing to see Amanda Seifreid watch footage of Elizabeth Holmes watching Amanda Seifre play her in the dropout.

Okay, that was a scene. but for her to play the role of Elizabeth Holmes again in these real life scenes is something else. But as soon as she gets introduced, and I'll say Amanda Seifrey kind of like asked the questions that we're all thinking, you start to wonder, wait, is Elizabeth Holmes fooling all of us? What do I mean?

So there is a scene in the movie where Nathan Fielder's explaining to Amanda Seifre that before filming of the doc ever took place, there was a meeting between him, Lance Oppenheim, these executives from A-24, and Holmes and Evans. And as he's explaining this to Amanda Seifreed, it's overlaid over a recreation of that meeting where Amanda Seifred plays Holmes and actor Christopher Abbott plays the role of Billy Evans. And at this meeting, again, this is Nathan Fielder's recollection of what this meeting was.

At this meeting, they start talking about the documentary to be filmed. And at one point, according to Fielder, Holmes leaves to go upstairs to check on one of her kids while Evans stays behind. Evans then allegedly negotiates what they're going to be paid for the documentary. Now that raises, of course, and this has talked about, all kinds of ethical issues, conflict of interest concerns, subjects of documentaries aren't usually paid for their roles in a documentary. But Fielder explains to Seifred. They had no choice but to agree to pay him because he had all the leverage. So they agree. Now the reason this is such a big deal is because Nathan Fielder then plays Amanda Seifred footage of a conversation he had with Elizabeth Holmes during his time with her, where she says out of nowhere that she's not receiving any kind of compensation or financial benefit for being part of the documentary, for being part of the film. And you couple that with Holmes saying in the film, money's not important to her. It's even repeated how she never sold any of her shares. So two narratives here, right?

Both played out kind of comical versions in the film. One is either Billy Evans kept all of this from her, kept her in the dark, didn't tell her about the money. And in the film, he says he didn't tell her. Or she and Evans devise this scheme where she deliberately goes upstairs. So she keeps her hands clean. She's not part of the conversation.

She's none the wiser, meaning she's seen. secretly a part of everything and devise this to get them paid. And Nathan Fielder says, meaning she might be the most manipulative person that's ever lived. She might be that deceitful. Or is she someone too trusting and can be kept out of the loop? Is that what happened with Sunny? And where Fielder seemingly confronts Elizabeth Holmes about this, what did she know? This is during a recreated prison scene with him and Amanda Seifred playing the role of Holmes.

And Holmes, according to Fielder, kind of gives a wishwashy answer about what she really knew and how she's not really involved with that, how she's not really privy to all the details. It wasn't, according to Fielder, her reaction, what? What are you talking about? We're getting paid? What did Billy do? What? No, it wasn't that, according to Fielder.

And then she claims, according to Nathan Fielder, look, Nathan, if it's really important to you that we don't take the money, I'll talk to Billy about it. I'll talk to Billy Evans about it. And this is eerily reminiscent of an early. scene in the film when Amanda Seifreed is visiting Billy Evans' house, kids are there. This was shocking because you see the two of them together. And by the way, it gets very tense later on during a dinner scene. But Holmes is on the phone from prison. And she and Amanda Seifreed. Again, the person who impersonated her who played her in the dropout, they're on the phone together. And it is a very short and very awkward conversation on the phone. And to be

clear, that's seemingly like the first time they ever spoke since Amanda Seifre portrayed. And when Seifred asks, did you know I was going to be here? Holmes replies along the lines, I don't know if I knew. So not a yes, not a no. It's strange. It's arguably calculated. Now, it should be noted that Evans ended up relinquishing financial compensation for the film without giving a reason why.

But it goes to this idea, right? Is this a sample of the real Elizabeth Holmes? Is she calculating? Is she strategic? Are she and Evans in on this together, assuming this is what really happened? And it is suggested that maybe Evans and Holmes are the same. Maybe they're just totally in love, that there's no manipulation or anything like that. Maybe there's nothing untoward going on here at all. I mean, Fielder even says when examining Holmes, he didn't sense duress or fear, but just genuine love between the two of them. And it brings us to the end of the film

because at the end of the film, Amanda Seyfried asks Nathan Fielder whether or not he deliberately isn't recounting a moment of deception that he observed from Elizabeth Holmes when he visited her in prison in order to protect her because he cares about her. Because during the film, he sees her cry.

You see her with her kids before she goes to prison. There's one, I'll just tell you, heartbreaking scene where it's about the last milk that she's going to give her child before she sent away. And Fielder does live with them. He hugs her. Gives her a hilarious card and gift, by the way, before she goes to prison. It's a card that says goodbye and good luck. And there's a gift of a disguise and hair dive she wanted to make an escape. But when Amanda Seifred asks Fielder, if he's hiding something about Holmes, that's overlaid with the scene of he and Holmes swimming in the ocean and having fun. And that's key because he indicated earlier in the film

that he doesn't really like cold water, but maybe he would make an exception to her. And you wonder, and whether this was done deliberately by the filmmakers, is Nathan Fielder hiding something about homes to protect her? Has he been manipulated by her charm and deceit like the investors? That's perhaps the opinion of those who believe everything you're seeing in this document. isn't real, that she's trying to craft a narrative, that she's being deceitful. Is he a victim? Is that what this whole film explores, how Holmes can get you to her side? And as Amanda Seifred says at the end of the film about this whole Elizabeth Holmes situation, quote, it's very complicated.

Yeah, it really, really is. And we're left to wonder, how much does Elizabeth Holmes know? Is she telling the truth? who's telling the truth. And we, the public jury, are probably all mixed in conclusions. Ambiguous. I mean, Fielder said at a screening in Telleride, quote, I really am struggling to this day to understand exactly what I experienced in this. I don't quite know what I went through. And I, and I have to imagine, a lot of people who see this film, maybe feel the same way. Now, as far as Elizabeth Holmes, it's been reported that she's scheduled to be placed in this Austin

transitional center out in Texas on August 23rd, 2027, so this halfway house. And her sentence had actually been reduced by the court to 10 years and three months. So she's now scheduled to be released on February 22nd, 2030. But look, that's my take. Watching this film, I'm curious. If you watched it, what you think, put it out in the comments. I'm so curious to read it. It's all we have for you right now here on Sidebar. Everybody, thank you so much for joining us. I'm Jesse Weber. Speak to you next time. Thank you.