Thread by @MilesGCohen

We are listening to a taped recording between Parloff and Holmes.

Holmes talked about the “highest levels of quality and data integrity,” in the first clip played.

"We have done work overseas for Pharma companies uhh a little bit with foreign governments in the past. But right now we’ve got our works for us cut out here," Holmes told Parloff in a restaurant.

She knew he was recording, Parloff testified.

Holmes told Parloff that her tech had been used by the military in Afghanistan, he testified.

He said he was not supposed to use that information in the piece.

Holmes sent Parloff the validation report with the apparently doctored Pfizer logo —

"Did Ms. Holmes tell you that Theranos had generated the content of this report?"

"No," Parloff testified.

Bostic pulled up the conclusions in the "angiogenesis report"

"Did Ms. holmes ever tell you these were not the conclusions with Pfizer,"

"No," Parloff testified.

Bostic pulled up the Schering Plough report which appears to be the same as the one admitted earlier in trial

"...Did Ms. Holmes ever tell you that this praise (conclusion section) was generated by Theranos itself?"

"No," Parloff testified.

Another recording played out loud:

“There's a lot of automation around it….That's part of where we focused on minimizing human error,” Holmes told parloff, as we heard in court.

“You agreed with ms holmes that she could give you info, but you checked with her before disclosing?" Bostic asked.

"I was getting it on background," Parloff clarified. "Getting her approval before so I didn't compromise her IP rights.”

Holmes never disclosed to Parloff Theranos was buying third party analyzers, he testified.

"When you do perform venipuncture, why is that at the moment?" Parloff asked.

"...The biggest reason is that we are scaling. And as we build out the infrastructure we're also building out the inventory," Holmes said, as we heard out loud, among other reasons.

“Our whole business is about eliminating the need for the venipuncture," Holmes continued. "Everything we do is about eliminating that.”

Holmes never told Parloff they were doing venipuncture because there were some fingerstick tests they couldn't do, Bostic elicited.

Defense attorney John Cline interrupted Parloff's testimony. He told the judge that there are recordings of the convos he's testifying to.

The judge indicated its Bostic's prerogative to play the tapes or not.

We're breaking now. Parloff remains on direct.

Parloff is back — Bostic begins with another clip from an interview with Elizabeth Holmes.

Did you ever ask Ms holmes directly whether #theranos had third party analyzers...?

Parloff said he asked Holmes two questions, neither were recorded, but he had notes. Both were before he published his 2014 profile.

"You dont keep a Siemens analyzer on hand, for overflow do you?" Parloff asked, as he recalled from the stand.

"she said 'uh-huh'...A non verbal response, but it meant, correct we dont do that."

"It's not for instance that we can't do our own tests on our own platform, we need to do it on a Siemens analyzer," Holmes explained, as Parloff recalled.

Bostic asked if Parloff asked about the term Edison.

"I'm pretty sure she brought it up," he said.

"The name was no longer in use," Parloff said.

As Parloff approached his date of publication Holmes sent him some clarifications about the language he could use in his article.

“As you know, we want to generally keep the focus off the hardware. A way to do this if you are referring to it/the automation in our lab is to use the word analyzer...(rather than the word device)," Holmes wrote Parloff.

"It is ok to say the analytical systems are about the size of a desktop computer...off the record this is the size of the system we’re standardizing around for our next wave of production contrasting the size of our [lab] facility next to conventional [lab facilities," she wrote

Holmes never contacted Parloff to request a correction after his article was published, he testified.

We are listening to more clips from a 6-minute portion of a convo with Holmes on July 1. 2015 — after Parloff published his article.

Bostic brought up the 40% number we heard earlier in trial — the percent of venous tests run on Theranos' patients who went into Walgreens.

That number was never told to Parloff, he testified.

Parloff reached out to Holmes post-WSJ article (Oct. 2015) to get her reaction to a statement about how many tests the device could do.

"I asked how many tests could you do on your proprietary device as of Dec. 2014, which was the date referenced in the WSJ article. She responded, 50-60, maybe 70. We can get you that number," she said.

Bostic ended his direct.

John Cline on for cross.

Cline started by listing Parloff's ridiculously juiced up resume.

Harvard...yale...law school...law professor

then journalist.

Is it fair to say by April of 2014, you had had many years of experience asking questions? As a lawyer and then as a journalist?

I suppose, yes.

Cline is asking Parloff a line about a convo he had with David Boies who Parloff spoke to about the merit of an article on Elizabeth Holmes

Parloff invoked reporter privilege.

His attorney stood up from the an audience bench in the court room to back him up.

"You first met with Ms. Holmes on 4/7/2014?"

...That's right

“Normally the assumption is you're on the record until you say you're off the record,” Parloff said to Cline, when Cline asked if he set any ground rules.

Did you understand that something that was to be off the record was not be used in the article?

Yes

We are listening to portions of the interview tapes from April 2014, as selected by John Cline.

"...The military could be one of them," Holmes said.