transcript
Speaker 1:
[00:03] After months of avoiding accountability, Laura Owens was finally required to answer some questions.
Speaker 2:
[00:10] I'm going to remind you again that you're not really supposed to be dishonest in depositions.
Speaker 3:
[00:15] I'm well aware.
Speaker 1:
[00:17] On March 1st, 2024, Laura sat for a deposition. The audio you're going to hear in this episode hasn't been made public before. On the other side of the desk was Greg Woodnick, the lawyer who two years earlier, she'd accused of orchestrating her alleged rape. Woodnick had some basic questions about Laura's alleged pregnancy with Clayton Echard's twins.
Speaker 2:
[00:40] You're under oath. Are you just going to deny that you ever sent this email yesterday?
Speaker 1:
[00:44] Woodnick had come prepared to hold Laura's feet to the fire.
Speaker 2:
[00:47] At what point were you going to tell my office or your own attorney that you doctored a medical record?
Speaker 1:
[00:54] The story had been a viral sensation for months. Not because people thought Clayton was the father, but because people thought Laura was lying.
Speaker 2:
[01:03] You knew the world, because this is national news, you knew the world thought you were bullshitting the pregnancy, right? There's articles about it, correct?
Speaker 3:
[01:14] Yes, Clayton has been very persuasive.
Speaker 1:
[01:18] In the deposition, Laura's story would change dramatically, once again. But this time, it was under oath. I'm Stephani Young, this is Love Trapped. By December 2023, Laura Owens would be seven months pregnant. She'd been barred from communicating directly with Clayton, but he was bracing for her next move, because she still had an active paternity case in the Arizona Family Court system.
Speaker 4:
[02:16] I ended up getting a notification that the Family Court case that Laura had opened against me was going inactive, which eventually meant if nothing else were to be filed, it would be closed completely.
Speaker 1:
[02:32] This happened because Laura and her attorney hadn't followed up with the filing. The paternity suit that she'd originally brought to the tabloids would be closed entirely without a resolution.
Speaker 2:
[02:43] It wasn't necessarily surprising that she went quiet. We obviously suspected exactly what it was, and that was the facts didn't align with her legal position, and she didn't know what to do. And we at this point had had a good amount of experience with her.
Speaker 1:
[02:58] But it left a big question. Was she still claiming to be pregnant? The last time she'd answered this question under oath was about a month prior.
Speaker 5:
[03:09] And how far along are you as you sit here today with respect to the pregnancy?
Speaker 3:
[03:15] I am 24 weeks along.
Speaker 1:
[03:20] In Arizona, a pregnancy loss after 20 weeks is legally a stillbirth, which would require the heavy step of filing fetal death certificates within 7 days, which Laura hadn't done. So if she claimed a pregnancy loss now, the math wouldn't add up. She'd already testified to being 24 weeks along. And now, if the paternity suit went inactive, there would be no closure, no proof of what happened to Laura's alleged pregnancy.
Speaker 4:
[03:50] That didn't sit right with me. I felt it was very unfair that she got to make a false accusation against me and get away with it without any repercussions.
Speaker 1:
[04:04] Clayton felt strongly about this, so he called Woodnick.
Speaker 4:
[04:08] I said, hey, this case is going inactive here soon, and I'm not okay with that. I would like to file something to have her prove that she was pregnant, because she won't be able to. Can we do that?
Speaker 1:
[04:27] Actually, there were a couple of things they could do. First, they filed a motion to establish non-paternity. That means that Clayton wanted a court record saying he was not the father. Here's one of Woodnick's associates on the case, Isabelle Ranney.
Speaker 6:
[04:43] If you have a paternal DNA test that says he's the father, then he's the father. But we had none of that. And because of this fictitious filing, he was entitled to a determination that he was never the father.
Speaker 2:
[04:58] So we notified the court that, hey, we're here and we're doing this and we need a hearing.
Speaker 1:
[05:03] Two years earlier, Isabelle worked on Greg Gillespie's case with Woodnick. Greg was another man Laura claimed had impregnated her with twins. Isabelle decided to try and anticipate Laura's next move.
Speaker 6:
[05:17] At that point, we were very familiar with her pattern, and we knew that she was going to either claim abortion or miscarriage, or maybe she was going to allege that there was another assault on her that my boss was involved in.
Speaker 1:
[05:33] After what Woodnick had seen on Greg's case, he felt like Laura was capable of anything. So he signed Clayton up for something called the Putative Fathers Registry. It's a little-known state registry that protects the parental rights of unmarried biological fathers, notifying them if their child is being placed for adoption.
Speaker 2:
[05:54] We decided to notify the Putative Fathers Registry about Clayton, not because we thought Laura was pregnant. We didn't. But Laura was claiming she was pregnant. What we didn't want Laura to do was what we were anticipating, which was claim, I had the Bachelors' babies, and I put them up for adoption.
Speaker 1:
[06:16] Clayton didn't know what her next move would be. But with Woodnick on his team, he finally felt like they had a chance to prove the truth in court.
Speaker 4:
[06:26] I need to hold this woman accountable. I'm tired of people stepping all over me. And shitting on my reputation. It's time that I fight back. And I had heard that somebody wasn't too happy and certainly wasn't expecting that to be filed. And this was like the fire that really was lit under my ass, where I was like, I don't deserve this. Like I'm a good person. I'm not perfect, but I am not a monster. And I'm tired of this bullshit. It's time to fight fire with fire.
Speaker 1:
[06:54] He wanted an explanation. She claimed in court to be 24 weeks pregnant. She couldn't act like that never happened. But on December 28th, she tried. Dave Neal broke the news.
Speaker 7:
[07:07] Ladies and gentlemen of Bachelor Nation, we have breaking news to present to you right now. An absolutely wild day in Bachelor Nation. A source claims she is no longer pregnant and is trying to get her case dismissed that she has in family court.
Speaker 1:
[07:25] Laura filed to dismiss the paternity case. And in the filing, she claimed she was, quote, no longer pregnant with no explanation. Did she have the babies? Did she have a twin stillbirth? She didn't say. All she said in the filing is that she was no longer pregnant and therefore asked the courts to dismiss the paternity case. But Clayton and Woodnick weren't about to let it end there. It was Clayton's turn to go nuclear. And he took it. He still had the right to have his portion of the case adjudicated, to establish that he was never the father. Clayton and Woodnick wanted to go even further, to prove in court that Laura was never pregnant by Clayton Echard, that she'd been acting in bad faith. An evidentiary hearing was scheduled to settle it. That meant the case went into legal discovery.
Speaker 2:
[08:18] In Arizona, we've got discovery rules and we've got disclosure rules that require each side to give the other side all of their information.
Speaker 1:
[08:29] For the first time, Laura's pregnancy would be on trial. Prior to this, all their hearings had been focused on restraining orders and allegations of harassment. This time, the judge would be ruling on if Laura was actually pregnant. All of her medical records could be subpoenaed as part of discovery. And there was another tool in the toolbox. Depositions, where both Clayton and Laura would be required by the courts to give a sworn testimony.
Speaker 2:
[08:57] We try to gather data in cases without depositions. In this case, I think it was very necessary.
Speaker 1:
[09:04] Clayton's deposition was scheduled first. On February 2nd, 2024, he showed up to Laura's attorney's office. He expected it to just be him, Woodnick, and Laura's attorney. But to his surprise…
Speaker 4:
[09:18] I show up, and she's there. But not only is she there, she's there with a laptop. She's taking notes while I'm talking. We had somebody there transcribing the whole thing. All of my words were being documented.
Speaker 1:
[09:34] As you can imagine, this rubbed Clayton the wrong way. Why was Laura there if she had an order of protection against him?
Speaker 4:
[09:42] Because it was a legal matter. She could, but if you were so in fear for your own safety, why would you show up?
Speaker 1:
[09:51] Clayton's patience was clearly running thin. He wasn't even trying to hide his annoyance once the questioning got underway. Here's a clip from Clayton's deposition.
Speaker 8:
[10:02] Did you recently state during your podcast that the real reason you asked her to come over was so that you could have her conduct a pregnancy test of your own?
Speaker 4:
[10:11] That was the other part of it.
Speaker 8:
[10:13] In front of you, presumably?
Speaker 4:
[10:14] Yes. Although she would not pee in front of me, but yes.
Speaker 8:
[10:18] Understood. And did you purchase that pregnancy test?
Speaker 4:
[10:22] I did.
Speaker 8:
[10:23] And?
Speaker 4:
[10:24] It's called an ACG test because we know that she was never pregnant.
Speaker 8:
[10:28] Well, on the box, did it indicate that it was a pregnancy test? I'm sure.
Speaker 4:
[10:32] I guess that's what they market it as for people that are actually truthful and take these tests and don't lie.
Speaker 1:
[10:39] Laura's attorney then asked Clayton if he thought Laura was actually pregnant when the test came back positive. Clayton's side of the story stayed the same as it's been since the very beginning.
Speaker 4:
[10:51] I had a moment of disbelief. But yeah, at that moment, I thought maybe she had actually successfully trapped me by incriminating herself. That was my belief.
Speaker 1:
[11:00] The questioning didn't stop at the pregnancy test. The deposition then took a turn into what actually happened or didn't happen between them that night.
Speaker 8:
[11:11] Why wasn't there intercourse between you and Miss Owens?
Speaker 4:
[11:15] Because she said she didn't want to. So I said, okay. I respected that and didn't push it.
Speaker 1:
[11:23] In this podcast, you've heard Clayton's story. And you've heard bits and pieces of Laura's side. But before she went under oath, she made one more move. Here's Woodnick.
Speaker 2:
[11:35] I read it and my eyes bugged out. Clayton's on the phone with me and I'm like, this is weird. To me, this feels like extortion. I want to say two business days before the deposition, Clayton got the letter.
Speaker 1:
[12:05] Two days before Laura was scheduled to sit for her deposition, she sent Clayton a letter. Technically, she sent it to Woodnick, because she's legally not allowed to communicate with Clayton. The subject line read, Comprehensive Legal Notice of Intent to Sue for Breaches of Contractual and Fiduciary Duties. Laura was planning to sue for over $1 million.
Speaker 4:
[12:28] When you get a letter from somebody saying, I will sue you for 1.4 million, that is a little nerve wracking to get that email and go, is this person bluffing or are they legit? And do they have a case?
Speaker 1:
[12:43] Remember back in episode one, when Clayton first met Laura as a real estate client? He told her he wrote offers, but he didn't actually send the contracts. Well, Laura was dredging that back up and threatening to sue him for $1.4 million over the unsent offers. Her demand letter had one stipulation. Laura would agree not to pursue immediate litigation if Clayton dropped the family court case to prove non-paternity and any future legal actions against each other for any claims. Here's Woodnick.
Speaker 2:
[13:18] It might have been the first time I read something and I knew the damage that ChatGPT could cause.
Speaker 1:
[13:26] In her deposition, Laura would admit that ChatGPT helped her write this demand letter.
Speaker 2:
[13:32] But it also had some Laura elements to it. It was just kind of like that 11th hour thing that she would do.
Speaker 1:
[13:41] On Woodnick's advice, Clayton ignored the letter.
Speaker 2:
[13:44] Clayton didn't ruin her life financially because they met for a weekend. She blew him twice and then he decided he probably made a mistake and he shouldn't be dealing with real estate with her and he tried to distance himself professionally. That didn't cause her financial downfall. Everything she did causes her financial downfall, but it had nothing to do with Clayton. Then to turn around and say, hey Clayton, I'll walk away from suing you for $1.4 million in exchange for something else was like laughable and we laughed.
Speaker 1:
[14:20] Laura's deposition was scheduled for 8 AM on March 1st. This was the moment where she would have to answer for everything related to the alleged pregnancy on the record. Greg Woodnick was ready.
Speaker 2:
[14:32] It's in my office in Phoenix when videographer and a court reporter and she showed up. And I had my associate Isabel with me. And Isabel's job was to control the media and exhibits.
Speaker 1:
[14:45] Even though Laura showed up for Clayton's, he had no intention of showing up for hers.
Speaker 4:
[14:50] For me, showing up would show that she had me caught up. I can't do anything else right now. I was like, no, no, I want my life to look like this little thing. Oh, okay, I'll come in for my deposition, but for hers, forget it. You know, you're not gonna catch me there.
Speaker 9:
[15:10] Would you raise your right hand for me, ma'am?
Speaker 1:
[15:13] Laura was sworn in and the deposition got underway.
Speaker 9:
[15:17] Do you solemnly swear or affirm the testimony about to be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Speaker 5:
[15:22] Yes. Thank you.
Speaker 1:
[15:26] Woodnick started out with the question, not about her alleged pregnancy, but about The Bachelor. In his discovery, he'd gained access to hundreds of emails and texts between Laura and Clayton. When Laura had first met Clayton, she admitted to him in a text, quote, I know you were The Bachelor, but I don't watch the show. Sorry.
Speaker 2:
[15:50] You completed an application for The Bachelor or Bachelorette, yes or no?
Speaker 3:
[15:54] I don't know if I completed it. I know I shot a video, but I think it has multiple parts that I didn't do.
Speaker 1:
[16:01] Laura admitted that she started an application to go on the show. We don't know for which franchise, but it stands to reason that if she was applying, she'd probably watched the show before. My reporting uncovered a second, even more glaring contradiction to her statement that she didn't watch The Bachelor. This 2014 clip is from her father's radio show.
Speaker 10:
[16:25] So as I said more than once, Ron Owens, KGO Radio, I live in a house, well, it's an estrogen house. I've got two daughters, I've got a wife. And so The Bachelor is something that is never missed in our home.
Speaker 1:
[16:39] Wouldn't it continue the deposition? Moving on to the striking parallels between Clayton's case and Greg Gillespie's.
Speaker 2:
[16:46] Just to be clear, you suggested to Greg Gillespie that you would get an abortion if he agreed to date you.
Speaker 3:
[16:54] I didn't suggest it, it was more, I mean, he originally had suggested it.
Speaker 2:
[17:00] Laura, that's the exact same thing that you did with Clayton, correct?
Speaker 3:
[17:04] No.
Speaker 1:
[17:05] I will remind you here that in an email to Clayton on June 25th, 2023, Laura wrote, quote, I will not consider an abortion if you don't want to date and see if God brought us together for a reason. Then again on July 1st, Laura states in an email, You can't say you haven't been given a voice when I have told you that I will have an abortion if we try things out for a few weeks and have a good reason for aborting a child. Woodnick pressed her on this.
Speaker 2:
[17:36] You didn't ask Clayton to continue dating you and discuss abortion with him if he continued dating you.
Speaker 3:
[17:45] I said I wanted us to make the decision together and to spend two weeks together.
Speaker 2:
[17:51] Which is Clayton, date me for two weeks.
Speaker 3:
[17:54] I wanted, but it's not date me and I'll have an abortion.
Speaker 2:
[17:57] Well, that's exactly what it is. That's what you said in the email.
Speaker 3:
[17:59] No, it wasn't date me and I'll have an abortion. It was I wanted to figure out how he would be as a father.
Speaker 2:
[18:05] And you don't think that that email is eerily similar to what you just discussed sending to Grego Wespi?
Speaker 3:
[18:11] No, I think the situations were very different.
Speaker 1:
[18:16] Woodnick then turns to the ultrasound video. Laura e-mailed Clayton.
Speaker 2:
[18:20] The still that I'm showing you is dated September 5th, 2023 that says it's from Smile. Do you see that?
Speaker 7:
[18:26] Yes.
Speaker 1:
[18:28] Smile refers to Southwest Medical Imaging, a medical practice that does ultrasounds in Arizona. You'll be hearing that name often when it comes to Laura's ultrasounds. Woodnick pulled up the ultrasound video she'd sent.
Speaker 2:
[18:41] Okay, is this yours?
Speaker 3:
[18:43] This is not mine.
Speaker 2:
[18:44] Hang on for a second. This is an e-mail from you to Clayton, correct?
Speaker 3:
[18:48] Yes.
Speaker 2:
[18:49] You sent Clayton an e-mail on October 6th, 2023, correct?
Speaker 3:
[18:53] Correct.
Speaker 2:
[18:54] And you said, here is my 100 million percent real video. And then you attached a video, correct? Yes or no?
Speaker 3:
[19:03] That's my e-mail. I truly don't...
Speaker 2:
[19:07] Laura, does it have your name on it?
Speaker 3:
[19:08] It has my name on it. I don't even see what e-mail address it's from.
Speaker 2:
[19:12] Hang on for a second. And I'm going to remind you again that you're not really supposed to be dishonest in depositing I'm well aware. If you pulled up your scent account and you looked at October 6, 2023, in an e-mail exchange with Clayton, and you saw in your scent account that you attached this ultrasound image, you would agree you sent it then, correct?
Speaker 3:
[19:32] I'm positive I did not send this ultrasound video.
Speaker 2:
[19:35] Is this ultrasound yours?
Speaker 3:
[19:37] It is not my ultrasound.
Speaker 2:
[19:38] It says it's from Smile.
Speaker 3:
[19:40] But it wasn't the same date. It wasn't the same date. I was asked the same question by Dave Neal if this was mine, and I never, when he was trying to think he could trap me, and I've never said this was mine.
Speaker 2:
[19:51] Laura, whose is this?
Speaker 3:
[19:53] It's not mine.
Speaker 2:
[19:54] Yeah, but in October, is your suggestion that Clayton, like Greg, faked an ultrasound?
Speaker 3:
[20:00] I'm not saying that. I'm saying that people have commented online that my passwords have not been changed in more than three years on Discord, and I don't know what has happened with my email.
Speaker 2:
[20:10] Laura, you're under oath. Are you just going to deny that you ever sent this email yesterday? Pick your battle. Is it yours or not?
Speaker 3:
[20:17] This is not my ultrasound. No, it's not.
Speaker 1:
[20:21] To recap, Laura now claims the ultrasound video she emailed Clayton wasn't hers. She also claims she never sent the email at all, even though she'd emailed Clayton on the same day, before and after this, from the same email account. Then, Woodnick asked about the inconsistencies on the ultrasound.
Speaker 2:
[20:45] Exhibit number nine is from Scottsdale Medical Labs. This is an ultrasound dated July 7th, 2023?
Speaker 3:
[20:52] Yes.
Speaker 2:
[20:53] Okay. Is that your name on the top and your birthdate next to it?
Speaker 3:
[20:56] That is my name and birthdate, yes.
Speaker 9:
[20:57] Okay.
Speaker 2:
[20:58] And this is the ultrasound that you received at Smile that was presented in the prior proceedings, correct?
Speaker 3:
[21:05] Yes, it was. It was. But this was actually at Plain Parenthood.
Speaker 2:
[21:10] Okay, I want to make sure I clarify that. Let's start off with the basics. On Exhibit 9, is this your ultrasound?
Speaker 3:
[21:17] Yes.
Speaker 2:
[21:18] Okay. Did you go into a Smile facility, because it is your mark Smile, to get this ultrasound?
Speaker 3:
[21:25] I did not.
Speaker 2:
[21:26] Where did you get this ultrasound?
Speaker 3:
[21:28] Plain Parenthood and Mission Viejo.
Speaker 2:
[21:29] Okay. So I don't know Mission Viejo well, but is what you're suggesting that Scottsdale Medical Imaging has a branch in Mission Viejo, California?
Speaker 3:
[21:39] No.
Speaker 2:
[21:40] I'm totally confused here. I'll give you a chance just to explain how there's a Scottsdale Medical Imaging ultrasound that you claim came from Mission Viejo, California.
Speaker 3:
[21:48] There's not. This was actually taken in, this was taken in Mission Viejo. This was not taken at Smile.
Speaker 2:
[21:54] Why does it say Smile on it?
Speaker 3:
[21:56] I did change the top of that from Plain Parenthood to Smile, because I didn't want him to contact a doctor at Plain Parenthood. All right.
Speaker 2:
[22:04] I'm showing you real clearly an ultrasound image that you are admitting to having changed information on. Is that true?
Speaker 3:
[22:11] Just the top left?
Speaker 5:
[22:13] Yes.
Speaker 1:
[22:15] This was a jaw-dropping moment. Under oath, Laura admitted to doctoring a medical record. She says she's changed the name of the doctor's office, and that's it. But her admission opens up a world of possibilities. If she altered this, did she alter anything else? Now, her credibility and the credibility of her ultrasounds was in question. The significance of this admission wasn't lost on Woodnick.
Speaker 2:
[22:45] Other than changing the word smile on that exhibit, did you change anything?
Speaker 3:
[22:51] No.
Speaker 2:
[22:52] All right, Laura, I'm going to give you an opportunity now, because we're three years into this and a year into this case. Is this the only document you've altered?
Speaker 3:
[22:59] Yes.
Speaker 2:
[23:00] So, every exhibit in this entire history of fainting, of our position, which is fainting pregnancies, the only document that you're acknowledging having touched the arts and crafts is CE 0183, marked for today's deposition as exhibit number nine.
Speaker 3:
[23:19] Yes, this is the only, this is the only one, and I would hope that the fact that I'm admitting that would mean something.
Speaker 2:
[23:25] Well, it means that you lied in an exhibit. You understand that? So this is where we go back to this issue of you being able to plead the fifth. You acknowledge you had a medical document that you changed, and you're telling me right now that's the only one that I have to think about? Yes. Okay. What software did you use to change it?
Speaker 3:
[23:44] Adobe Acrobat.
Speaker 2:
[23:46] At what point were you going to tell my office or your own attorney that you doctored a medical record?
Speaker 3:
[23:54] I mean, as I said, it's my ultrasound. It is my ultrasound.
Speaker 1:
[24:02] Woodnick pressed her further, and it seems like Laura got caught in her own lie.
Speaker 2:
[24:06] How many sonograms have you had for this alleged pregnancy?
Speaker 3:
[24:11] One.
Speaker 2:
[24:12] Where was it?
Speaker 3:
[24:13] Planned Parenthood Mission Viejo.
Speaker 2:
[24:15] If I were to want the original source of the sonogram, the only sonogram you took in a six or seven month pregnancy, I could only get it from the source at Mission Viejo Planned Parenthood.
Speaker 3:
[24:28] Yeah, and I did go anonymously.
Speaker 2:
[24:31] Oh. So if I issue a subpoena to them, because you're going to sign a consent when we bring this to Judge Matzah's attention, they're not going to know it was you that was there.
Speaker 3:
[24:40] I self-paid. I mean, I don't know.
Speaker 2:
[24:44] Okay. So I'm going to give you an opportunity again, because you've got statements under the oath that we're about to get to from the prior proceedings. You do not have to answer my questions. You can always plead the fifth. Your testimony now is that the sonograms that I just presented to you are not yours, correct?
Speaker 3:
[25:01] The one sonogram was mine.
Speaker 2:
[25:03] And it came from Mission Viejo, but Mission Viejo is not going to have any idea it was you because you did it anonymously, but then you went back and you added your name to it.
Speaker 3:
[25:12] No, I didn't add my name to it. My name was on it. I changed the smile thing.
Speaker 2:
[25:18] Your name was on it?
Speaker 3:
[25:19] And I changed smile.
Speaker 2:
[25:21] Hang on for a second. You just told me, Laura, that you were anonymous at Planned Parenthood.
Speaker 3:
[25:26] But I changed smile on there.
Speaker 2:
[25:28] So when I get the subpoena or the records released from smile, this isn't going to be there because they didn't do this test.
Speaker 9:
[25:36] Correct.
Speaker 2:
[25:37] Because you just put their name on the test.
Speaker 9:
[25:39] Correct.
Speaker 2:
[25:39] Okay. This test, according to you, was originated in California.
Speaker 3:
[25:46] Correct.
Speaker 2:
[25:47] And you went in there anonymously.
Speaker 3:
[25:48] Correct. And I, yeah, I added my name in the facility name.
Speaker 2:
[25:53] Okay. So we're changing your testimony. So it's not just that you originally said you just changed and added the word smile, but now under oath, you're saying you added your name to it too, correct?
Speaker 3:
[26:03] Correct.
Speaker 1:
[26:05] Now she was admitting to another Photoshopping edit she'd made on the ultrasound.
Speaker 2:
[26:10] When you submit records to a court, you understand that you're assigning a verification with them and that there's an expectation of honesty?
Speaker 3:
[26:18] Yes, and I don't believe this was ever submitted to court.
Speaker 1:
[26:21] Once Laura admitted to altering it, the damage was already done.
Speaker 2:
[26:25] You understand why people may think you're lying about this exhibit number nine, right?
Speaker 3:
[26:28] Yeah.
Speaker 5:
[26:29] Okay, let's move on.
Speaker 1:
[26:31] Then the deposition turned to the big question. What happened to Laura's pregnancy? If you remember, she told the courts in a December filing that she was, quote, no longer pregnant. Here's Isabel Ranney, Woodnick's legal associate.
Speaker 6:
[26:47] Okay, so does that mean she was never pregnant? Does that mean she miscarried? Does that mean she had the baby and where's the fetal death certificate?
Speaker 11:
[26:55] What does that mean?
Speaker 1:
[26:57] Just a warning to listeners here, the deposition is about to go into graphic detail about Laura's alleged pregnancy loss. In January, Laura submitted another filing with a single line stating that she'd miscarried the pregnancy.
Speaker 6:
[27:11] There's no other information given, but it just says she miscarried.
Speaker 1:
[27:15] Woodnick had to press her on this, because as we've said before, Laura had previously admitted under oath to being 24 weeks pregnant.
Speaker 6:
[27:23] So if you're past 20 weeks or if a fetus is under a certain amount of grams, you do have to file a fetal death certificate and I believe you have seven days to do that.
Speaker 1:
[27:35] This was a huge inconsistency that Laura couldn't explain away. If there were actually babies, it wouldn't be a miscarriage. It would be a stillbirth. And legally, there had to be a paper trail, like death certificates and presumably hospital records. But instead of producing medical records, Laura came to the deposition with a whole new timeline.
Speaker 2:
[28:00] I'm going to move you to exhibit number 56. This is the mom doc records, correct?
Speaker 3:
[28:07] Correct.
Speaker 2:
[28:08] And that was on November 14th?
Speaker 3:
[28:10] Yes.
Speaker 2:
[28:11] Okay. What did you find out on November 14th in this exhibit?
Speaker 3:
[28:14] That I was no longer pregnant.
Speaker 2:
[28:16] Okay. And you claim you had your miscarriage somewhere between 20 and 23 weeks, correct?
Speaker 3:
[28:21] I don't know quite when the miscarriage was.
Speaker 2:
[28:24] Well, at some point, your body discharged something if you were actually pregnant, correct?
Speaker 3:
[28:30] Yes.
Speaker 2:
[28:30] When did that happen?
Speaker 3:
[28:32] I was having spotting on and off throughout, which is why I ended up going and getting my blood levels.
Speaker 2:
[28:39] When was the first time you had spotting during your pregnancy?
Speaker 3:
[28:41] I think it was August or September. I did an online doctor's visit.
Speaker 1:
[28:48] An online doctor's visit. Laura claimed that when she started bleeding during her high-risk twin pregnancy, she didn't go in person to the hospital or a doctor's office. She made a telehealth appointment and adopted a wait and see attitude. Woodnick wanted to know exactly what this online doctor told her. Laura's answer was vague.
Speaker 2:
[29:12] What did you tell them?
Speaker 3:
[29:13] I told them I was having very light spotting and they said it probably was nothing to worry about.
Speaker 2:
[29:18] And was this a gynecologist or was this some nurse on call?
Speaker 3:
[29:25] It was technically a gynecologist, but it was an online doctor.
Speaker 2:
[29:30] Okay. And he did not tell you to go get an ultrasound and get checked?
Speaker 3:
[29:34] He said if I was concerned that I could, but he thought it was probably fine and to monitor if it got worse.
Speaker 2:
[29:40] So you obviously weren't concerned?
Speaker 3:
[29:42] I didn't know what I wanted to do with the pregnancy at that point.
Speaker 1:
[29:47] Even if Laura was still processing her options regarding her alleged pregnancy, it's difficult to see her overlook her own well-being during such a high-risk moment.
Speaker 2:
[29:57] I'm going to turn your attention to the top of the first page of exhibit 56. Patient reports she passed two sacks which appeared to have a membrane but denies having much bleeding outside of that. When did you pass sacks?
Speaker 3:
[30:15] It was September or October.
Speaker 2:
[30:17] Where were you?
Speaker 3:
[30:18] I was at home.
Speaker 2:
[30:19] And you didn't call 911?
Speaker 3:
[30:21] I did not call 911.
Speaker 2:
[30:22] Did you call your doctor?
Speaker 3:
[30:23] I did do another online doctor's visit. Who was that with? It's the same service. I just don't know their name.
Speaker 2:
[30:29] You just said you passed two sacks in October or September?
Speaker 3:
[30:35] Yeah, I mean, I don't remember exactly what it was.
Speaker 2:
[30:38] Seems like that would be a very traumatic experience and that you would remember the date.
Speaker 3:
[30:43] It was a traumatic experience, but the entire— My life was traumatic last year for six months, and I didn't leave the house.
Speaker 1:
[30:53] It's a recurring theme. According to Laura, she was experiencing a major medical emergency, but instead of rushing to the ER, she just hopped back online. And once again, the details of who she actually talked to were blurry.
Speaker 2:
[31:10] When it happened, did you think you were having a miscarriage?
Speaker 3:
[31:13] I thought there was a very good chance I was having a miscarriage.
Speaker 2:
[31:16] And there is no medical record of that from any Arizona-based obstetrician, correct?
Speaker 3:
[31:22] Not in person.
Speaker 2:
[31:23] Where were you when this happened?
Speaker 3:
[31:25] I was at my house when it happened.
Speaker 2:
[31:27] Who was with you?
Speaker 3:
[31:28] I called my mom over.
Speaker 2:
[31:30] Did your mom see them?
Speaker 3:
[31:32] Yes, she did.
Speaker 2:
[31:32] Okay. And your mom was okay with you just calling a Teladoc appointment?
Speaker 3:
[31:39] I was not having heavy bleeding with it. And so she said to see what they had to say. She did want me to go to the emergency room originally, and I was getting pressured to do that.
Speaker 2:
[31:48] And you didn't, correct?
Speaker 3:
[31:49] I did not.
Speaker 2:
[31:50] And you knew at that point that everyone was saying you weren't pregnant, correct?
Speaker 3:
[31:53] No, not everybody was saying that, because I was told it could have been clots that I passed. And I was still tested pregnant for a long time after that.
Speaker 2:
[32:01] So your testimony is two sacks came out of you sometime in September or October, correct?
Speaker 9:
[32:08] Correct.
Speaker 2:
[32:08] You don't know when, exactly.
Speaker 9:
[32:10] Correct.
Speaker 2:
[32:11] The only witness is your mom.
Speaker 3:
[32:13] Right. Well, and my sister, I sent her photos at the time.
Speaker 2:
[32:16] Photos of what?
Speaker 3:
[32:18] The sacks, which I deleted. No, I deleted them.
Speaker 2:
[32:21] You just said you sent Sarah pictures. Why did you delete them? Because that would be evidence spoliation.
Speaker 3:
[32:26] Because it was extremely upsetting at the time.
Speaker 2:
[32:29] Now you're telling me there was a photo. Who took the photo of the sacks?
Speaker 3:
[32:32] I did.
Speaker 2:
[32:33] With what?
Speaker 3:
[32:35] My phone and I-
Speaker 2:
[32:36] Your iPhone?
Speaker 3:
[32:37] Yes.
Speaker 2:
[32:37] And now you're claiming you don't have the same iPhone.
Speaker 3:
[32:40] Well, no, but I mean, I don't, but I deleted them. It wouldn't have mattered. I deleted it immediately after.
Speaker 2:
[32:47] And then you never followed up with a physician regarding whatever that was. There's no subsequent ultrasound.
Speaker 3:
[32:53] No, I did not. I followed up in November.
Speaker 1:
[32:59] During the deposition, Laura wouldn't provide a firm date of her alleged pregnancy loss, and there are zero medical records to back it up, at least not from a doctor she saw in person.
Speaker 9:
[33:11] This deposition has concluded.
Speaker 1:
[33:13] We are off the record at 1134 AM Nearly three hours of deposition, and it was a total roller coaster. It was confusing and exhausting. And more than anything, it was shocking to see how much Laura was willing to say under oath. But if you think this was a lot, just wait. Because in a few months, there would be a courtroom trial, and Laura would change her story yet again. Laura's deposition happened behind closed doors. It wasn't live streamed, and no one online had access to the recording. But the online community remained vigilant, and glued to the story, monitoring every digital footprint and collaborating in real time to question her narrative.
Speaker 11:
[34:20] One morning, I wake up, it was the morning of December 13th, 2023, and I'm playing with my son, and I see that our Laura Owens has been banned from Reddit. And I just thought, how, how, how is she able to just keep getting this stuff removed from the Internet?
Speaker 1:
[34:40] That's Schnitzel Ninja. She's the mom turned Internet detective, who was making public records available on her YouTube channel.
Speaker 11:
[34:47] It was unbelievable to me, and it pissed me off. And I was like, I don't even know how to start a subreddit. I don't know what it takes. I have no idea, but I'm going to start one because no one had started one yet that I could see.
Speaker 1:
[35:03] She wasn't about to sit around and wait, so she got to work making sure there was a public place where everyone could get together and share what they were digging up.
Speaker 11:
[35:11] I was thinking about, what do you do for the name? Well, the other one was our Laura Owens. So it was about her. And I was thinking, this isn't about her. It's about, in my opinion, the people that she's victimized. And the person who brought this to the forefront was Clayton. And I had heard Dave in a video say, all we need is justice for Clayton, something like that. And I was like, that's it. It's justice for Clayton. That's the name.
Speaker 1:
[35:44] With the Laura Owens subreddit gone, everyone was looking for a new place to land. She gave them one. And once justice for Clayton was live, it only took a minute for the whole crew to show up and pick up exactly where they left off.
Speaker 11:
[35:58] And this is the thing I tell everybody. This has been such a group effort. I don't even know how many people I could say have contributed in different ways. The subreddit has over 6,000 members, but there have been hundreds who have been involved, like getting documents, sharing things, like helping uncover things, doing research online. Hundreds, hundreds and hundreds of people.
Speaker 1:
[36:23] One of those people was Megan Fox. And no, not the actress Megan Fox. This Megan is a journalist and a podcaster on YouTube.
Speaker 12:
[36:31] I got into Laura Owens because I saw what was going on with Dave Neal and how an independent journalist was being attacked for telling this story. And I wanted to help.
Speaker 1:
[36:43] She initially didn't set out to cover the Clayton and Laura saga. For Megan, the real story was what was happening to another content creator you've heard about, Dave Neal.
Speaker 12:
[36:54] Dave was being horrifically misused by this person who was using the legal system as a weapon to get what she wants, which is to silence her critics. She was trying to get a protective order against Dave Neal for just talking about this story that was very public that she had gone to the media about.
Speaker 1:
[37:14] Dave welcomed the support from Megan. He was navigating a situation he never prepared for. He was sailing through uncharted waters. Here's Dave Neal.
Speaker 7:
[37:24] Megan was one of the first people that knew how to deal with someone coming after you. She's been sued in the past and she really helped guide me.
Speaker 1:
[37:34] Dave and Megan became fast friends. They took to social media, going live to analyze every shred of evidence they could find. The timing was serendipitous because Clayton and Laura's trial was set for June 10th, 2024. This would be the trial where a judge would hear evidence on both sides about Laura's alleged pregnancy. In advance of the big day, a witness list was announced to the public. On the list of Clayton's witnesses was Greg Gillespie, the man who experienced something similar with Laura back in 2021. You heard his story in the last episode. And at this point, the internet's loose had Greg Gillespie's name on their radar too. Luckily, Dave and Megan had already been digging into past evidence from Greg's case.
Speaker 7:
[38:22] We were doing a live stream together where we were looking through some of this information. And we were taking the evidence that Laura had used and putting it on my computer where you can look at it on a bigger screen.
Speaker 12:
[38:35] He was doing this thing that he does where he pulls up an image and he's just like, okay, let's zoom in, let's change the colors, let's put maybe the contrast. And he's really good at Photoshop.
Speaker 1:
[38:46] They poured over evidence that, on the surface, seemed trivial. But they operated on a hunch that the devil is always in the details.
Speaker 7:
[38:55] We noticed that this ultrasound image that she used to claim she was pregnant with twins with Greg Gillespie had sort of a circle mark on it, like a orb.
Speaker 1:
[39:05] The ultrasound looks pretty normal. But on the left side, they noticed what looks like a smudge. It's small, but not something you'd normally see on an ultrasound. They were zooming in on it during a YouTube livestream. Thousands of people were watching them analyze the ultrasound. And then, they caught something that would change the entire case. Here's the audio from that livestream.
Speaker 7:
[39:29] What are we seeing here? What's this? H-E-V-N? Is this a... Are you seeing this? The hell's going on here?
Speaker 1:
[39:36] What is that?
Speaker 12:
[39:37] Go back... Wait a minute, go back in.
Speaker 7:
[39:40] I never noticed it, and now I can't unsee it. What the hell is that?
Speaker 1:
[39:46] It looked edited in some way, but they couldn't figure out how. So they started manipulating the image. Here's Dave.
Speaker 7:
[39:54] We expand into the image in a forensic tool where you can sort of shift the colors and see if anything pops out. We start to see letters. It felt like Greek. We don't know what we're looking at.
Speaker 12:
[40:05] I go, well, it's a watermark. That's a watermark. He's like, it does. It looks like letters. What does it say? H-E-V, is it N? We're trying so hard. We're both looking at it, and I'm not looking at the chat because I'm looking at this image and I'm like, what is that? And I happen to look at the chat for a second, and the chat is going off. They're like, it says Fiverr. It says Fiverr. I looked at it, I'm like, oh, oh my God, Dave. It says Fiverr.
Speaker 1:
[40:35] Fiverr is an online marketplace where you can hire freelancers to do pretty much any digital task you can think of. The live stream chat was blowing up.
Speaker 7:
[40:45] And someone goes, oh my gosh. We zoom in further, and we notice that essentially there was a Fiverr logo, F-I-V-E-R-R. And I grabbed that logo off the internet. I looped it right over the image and it fit dead on. It was the Fiverr logo on this ultrasound.
Speaker 1:
[41:04] This was their reaction in the moment, as they realized what they'd stumbled upon.
Speaker 12:
[41:09] It says Fiverr.
Speaker 5:
[41:13] Oh, no!
Speaker 7:
[41:15] Oh, hold on.
Speaker 10:
[41:16] Hold on.
Speaker 7:
[41:18] Okay, hold on. Hold on. This is why you do it live.
Speaker 1:
[41:22] The reality sunk in that they were looking at a doctored ultrasound, photoshopped by a hired freelancer on Fiverr. Laura had sent this ultrasound to Greg Gillespie in 2021.
Speaker 7:
[41:35] Oh my gosh. It's so apparent to see. How the hell?
Speaker 12:
[41:39] Oh my God.
Speaker 7:
[41:41] Are we? I am losing. Now, hold on a second. Does the original have this? Because no, the original doesn't have it.
Speaker 1:
[41:50] The original was a sonogram that Greg had reverse image searched and traced back to an unrelated 2015 blog.
Speaker 12:
[41:58] It fits like a glove. It's unbelievable. This is the greatest programming in the history of YouTube. It was like the smoking gun of the entire case discovered live. This woman actually took someone's sonogram, went to Fiverr to have them do something to it, but then couldn't pay the money, however much it was to get the watermark removed, and she thought that was good enough to send to Greg.
Speaker 1:
[42:27] The online detectives had found something that was news to Clayton and his legal team. It got back to them quickly. Woodnick was impressed by what people like Dave and Megan were able to uncover. And he credits the online detectives as a major catalyst in how this case unfolded.
Speaker 2:
[42:44] I'd see them culling the information with the community online, and it was dynamic. They found information that I don't think any private investigator could have found, and certainly if they could have found it, it would have cost hundreds and hundreds of thousands of dollars in resources to get there.
Speaker 1:
[43:00] If Greg Gillespie was called to the stand during the upcoming trial, he could now confirm that the sonogram of twins sent to him by Laura was water marked and altered by a freelancer on Fiverr.
Speaker 12:
[43:13] That has always been the thing that has blown my mind in this case, is the sheer audacity of it. I've never seen anything like it, ever.
Speaker 1:
[43:28] Heading into the June 10th trial, Woodnick's team was feeling pretty good. They had the evidence, the depositions were done, and frankly, the case seemed cut and dried. Laura had admitted to altering medical records. Her timeline was constantly shifting, and she never provided medical documentation about what happened to her pregnancy. Now, I need you to think back to the beginning of this story, the night when Clayton and Laura hooked up. The exact details of what happened that night are only known to two people, Clayton and Laura. Since the beginning, they both stated that the hookup was consensual. But Laura was about to reveal something in the upcoming trial that no one saw coming.
Speaker 2:
[44:18] Your testimony now, nine months into this process, is that Clayton had penetrative sex with you against your will, Laura.
Speaker 1:
[44:27] Coming up on the next episode of Love Trapped, Laura and Clayton finally go to court.
Speaker 5:
[44:34] Do you recognize you've been accused of faking records in this case, right?
Speaker 1:
[44:38] Yes.
Speaker 5:
[44:39] And you expect the court to accept a picture of a portion of an alleged record?
Speaker 3:
[44:45] You guys got the results yourselves, so.
Speaker 5:
[44:48] These are yes or no questions.
Speaker 1:
[44:50] That's not fair.
Speaker 2:
[44:52] You're a public figure. You're the bachelor. That's why everyone's watching today. Are you embarrassed to say who you've had sex with, Clayton?
Speaker 4:
[44:58] I think I'm the last person to lie about who I've been intimate with.
Speaker 1:
[45:22] Thank you so much for listening. Please be sure to follow Love Trapped on Apple podcasts, the iHeart radio app, Spotify, or wherever you get your podcasts. And please leave us a review. A five-star rating helps others find this show. We're grateful for your support. If you would like to reach out to the Love Trapped team, email us at lovetrappedpod at gmail.com. That's lovetrapped, P-O-D, at gmail.com. Love Trapped is a production of Glass Podcasts, a division of Glass Entertainment Group, in partnership with iHeart Podcasts. This show was executive produced by Nancy Glass, Andrea Gunning, and Ben Federman. Written, produced, and hosted by me, Stephani Young. Our story editor is Monique Laborde. Producer on this episode is Sydney Gladue. Additional production support from Todd Gans. Our production manager is Kristen Malkiri. For iHeart Podcasts, Ali Perry was our executive producer. Audio editing and mastering by Anna McClain. Additional editing support by Tanner Robbins and Matt Delvecchio. This podcast was developed in collaboration with Danny Passman and Leb Abramoff at Crybaby Media. The Love Trapped theme is composed by Oliver Baines. Music library provided by MIBE Music. A special thanks to Kerry Lieberman, Will Pearson, Jessica Kreincheck, Allie Cantor, and the entire iHeart podcast team. And for more podcasts from iHeart, visit the iHeart radio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts.