Why are people so delighted at the downfall of Elizabeth Holmes? | Emma Brockes

We dislike Silicon Valley's grifters, but the glee over the Theranos founder's ruin seems disproportionate

Ten minutes prior to the announcement of the verdict in the Elizabeth Holmes trial on Monday, reporters in San Jose, California, tweeted a heads up that the jury had returned. The news hit Twitter like oil on a hot frying pan, triggering not only anticipation, but a frisson of spite. Holmes, whose outfits over the course of the 15-week trial - dowdy, pale, and unthreatening - were interpreted as a contrivance equal to the black turtlenecks before them, isn't a sympathetic figure, and there is always satisfaction to seeing confidence tricksters called out. But the level of enjoyment in her ruin, it seems to me, falls outside the normal range. Ha," I thought childishly when the guilty verdict came in. Serves her right."

This was a particular and not wholly flattering form of schadenfreude. Holmes was found guilty of defrauding her investors on four counts; she was found not guilty on four counts relating to defrauding patients; and the jury couldn't reach a verdict on three further counts. In all likelihood she will go to jail, and the sheer size of the numbers involved - Holmes defrauded investors to the tune of almost $1bn - will affect the length of her sentence. None of which quite explains the scale of contempt for the woman. I can't summon a particular face or any real antipathy towards the board members of Enron. I loathe the architects of the 2008 financial crisis in a vague way that has never attached to a single image. Here is Holmes, however, with her too-red lipstick and wispy hair; and up it comes, a violent surge of dislike.

Emma Brockes is a Guardian columnist