Forensic psychologist critiques Elizabeth Holmes portrayal in new documentary
John De La Torre, a forensic psychologist, discusses how he would have questioned Elizabeth Holmes in the documentary “You Can See Everything,” and offers his assessment of her mindset and the film’s reliability.
Forensic psychologist John De La Torre, who specializes in criminal scams, reviewed the documentary “You Can See Everything,” which follows filmmakers Nathan Fielder and Lance Oppenheim as they spent 34 days in Elizabeth Holmes’s home before her surrender to prison. De La Torre said the film felt like a “game” designed to present a version of truth that may not be complete.
He explained that his training focuses on detecting deception and inconsistency, noting that “consistent people tell the truth; inconsistent people lie.” He said he would have begun by asking Holmes about the nature of her relationships and how she gauges others’ feelings toward her.
De La Torre observed that the documentary omitted follow-up on certain topics, such as Holmes’s father’s disclosure of a past sexual assault, and that it did not fully explore her mental state. He concluded that Holmes appears to believe she did nothing wrong, adding, “I think she operates under the assumption that she needs to win or that something positive needs to happen, and she is willing to engage in whatever behavior she needs to engage in.”
Although Holmes maintains she never knowingly lied, De La Torre characterized her actions as a “con” rooted in genuine belief in her work, stating, “She made other people believe that it could already do those things, and that confidence was the con game she was playing.”
Regarding Holmes’s partner Billy Evans, De La Torre interpreted a shower scene as evidence of a desire for attention, describing Evans’s behavior as “outlandish” and “ridiculous.”
De La Torre singled out actress Amanda Seyfried, who reprises her role as Holmes from the Hulu series “The Dropout,” as the only participant offering an “objective and unbiased view,” saying she “calls out all of the nonsense” from other participants.
He warned viewers that the documentary’s participants each have an agenda, and that confusion after watching may indicate awareness that the film does not reveal the full truth.