The Eleventh Hour | EP 13

A couple weeks after our last episode aired, I found
myself back in Phoenix, Arizona, at the Maricopa County Superior Courthouse.
Laura Owens was due back in court on May twentieth
for another hearing about the status of her criminal case.
I'd been to this courthouse once before for Laura's pretrial
hearing last August, but this time felt different. This podcast
was out and millions of people were following along. As
I made my way into the courthouse, I ran into
a familiar face, Clayton's attorney, Greg Woodnick. He made time
in his schedule to come to this hearing in person
just in case something important happened.
Victims are welcoming court and Clayton was unavailable to go,
and I was available, so I went to put my
eyes on the situation.
Woodnick represented both Clayton Eckerd and another victim in Laura's
criminal case, Greg Gillespie. We were standing together in the
hallway waiting for the hearing to get started when the
elevator doors opened. Out walked Laura Owens and her mother,
Jan Black.
Jan and Laura came out of the elevator and walked
past me.
When Jan saw us. She doubled back, walked closer, and
then stopped right in front of Woodnick.
Jan said something to the extent of do I need
to talk to you? And I kind of looked at
her quizzically because I wasn't there to talk to her.
Candidly had caught me off guard that she'd walk right
into my kind of zone.
I was standing right there watching this awkward interaction play out,
wondering if Jan was going to say something to me next,
but she kept her focus on Woodnick.
And then I didn't even say anything.
And then I think she immediately said, why are you
staring at me?
I was kind of a little dumbfouted. I was not
staring at her.
I was just in the courthouse waiting to go into
the courtroom with other people. It was a little confrontational
and a little bit uncomfortable.
I haven't heard from Laura since the last episode of
the podcast aired later, when Nick told me that was
his first time interacting with Jan in person.
I think the only time I've ever seen her in
three to mention was June of twenty twenty, fourth trial
with Judge Mada.
We watched as Laura and her mom walked into the courtroom.
A few minutes later, we took our seats. The judge
had a couple other cases to get through first. The
two defendants before Laura were brought out in striped prison jumpsuits.
It was a vivid reminder of what we're dealing with here.
This is a criminal case and Laura's hearing was about
to begin.
This is CR twenty twenty five year zero seven nine
zero five State versus Laura Owen's time set for a
complex case management conference.
I'm Stephanie Young and this is love trapped.
There's no way.
You'd better. I'll be razy Hollas if you and a
never ever.
Trashing.
The day after our last episode went live, my phone
started blowing up. Maricopa County Attorney Rachel Mitchell, the one
who charged Laura criminally, had made an appearance on a
local Phoenix radio station. They asked her about our podcast.
This is like a big podcast. A lot of people
were talking about this. It's a Scottsdale woman. It's the
celebrity aspect of pregnancy case. Does she try and do
this again?
Well?
There have been different allegations made against her, some of them.
I have to be careful because you know, obviously this
is ongoing, but some of them occurred in a different state,
and I think a lot of people are wanting it
all wrapped up here, And obvious, I only have jurisdiction
over what happened in Maricopa County, but yeah, there are
some allegations that other things happened as well.
That this is a serial behavior on her part.
This is one of the first times anyone has heard
Rachel Mitchell comment on Laura's case outside of a press conference.
The radio host took the opportunity to ask Rachel Mitchell
a big question, the same one we wondered at the
end of our podcast. Laura's first plea deal just expired?
What happens next?
So she reportedly didn't respond to a plea deal by
a recent deadline. Is that right?
I believe that's correct.
If you watch the video of the interview, there's a
telling moment right here when you can see Attorney Mitchell
look off camera checking with someone else in the room.
So yeah, yeah, can you say what she was offered?
I don't think that would be appropriate for me to
discuss the plea offer.
Do you think the case will go to trial?
Yeah, that's the next step trial.
Was the next step. Dozens people sent me this video
because it looked like we finally had our answer, the
answer we'd been chasing for weeks. Attorney Mitchell believed Laura's
case was going to trial without a plea. I wish
it turned out to be that simple, but with Laura Owens,
it never is. A lot has happened over the last
month and a half, so let me catch you up.
After Attorney Mitchell made that radio appearance, the station posted
a digital article with the headline Laura Owens bachelor fraud
case going to trial. The news spread like wildfire. I
saw screenshots on Reddit, social media, and in my DMS. Naturally,
my first call was to Clayton Eckert to see how
he was feeling about the news.
I thought at first that that was a good thing,
because I figured if she missed a deadline should be
penalized for it. My initial thought was good, Like she's
now about to get hit with something worse.
Before I could even hang up with Clayton, a brand
new headline replaced the last one. This latest headline suggested
that plea negotiations were still on the table. Basically, they backtracked.
It's really frustrating.
At some point you have to look at the individual
and realize, like, this is just a tactic.
She doesn't need any more time.
Any time extension is just her playing a game. What's
the point of a deadline if it's not actually enforced,
it's just agitating.
Honestly, no one knew what the hell was going on.
Was there a new plea being offered? Was she taking
that plea? We were in the dark and it would
stay that way until May twentieth at Laura's Complex Case
Management hearing. This is the hearing that brought me back
to Arizona. Before it got started, I watched Woodnick and
jan have that awkward encounter in the hallway.
This is CR twenty twenty five years zero seven nine
zero five State versus Laura Owens. Time set for a
complex case management conference. Can I get appearances? Please?
Aaron Petticomb for Ed Leider for the State Victims Council
is also present as as a Vican advocate.
All right, thank you.
A complex case management hearing is kind of a routine
check in to make sure the case is progressing appropriately.
Good more than to judge Christian Waverers in the head
of Laura Owens, who's present out of custy with Dad
the podium.
Laura was being represented by Christian Looters. It's her third
attorney on this case. The judge asked both sides if
there was anything they wanted to discuss, and the state
jumped in. This is where we finally got an answer
about if the plea deal had been extended.
I did have a discussion with defense counsel about extending
the plead deadline, considering that he is relatively new to
the case and there have been some relatively minor issues
transmitting discovery. The current expiration date is June twenty sixth.
The state extended the deadline. The plea deal now expired Friday,
June twenty sixth, and the next time Laura will be
in front of the judge will be Monday, June twenty ninth.
Laura's new attorney, Christian Looters, said they'd be ready for
that date.
We will have everything I think done and decided one
way or another about the plead prior to the twenty sixth,
so I'll have a conversation with mis or later.
We'll straighten this up, all right.
If there's any kind of problem, then there's no flexibility.
Let me know and we'll work out something for you.
We'll do.
Thank you, Jege Okay, sim Of Owens need to be
back in my courtroom June twenty ninth at eight forty five.
If Laura doesn't take the plea deal, her case is
scheduled for trial. The dates are already set.
And after that you have that final trial management conference
July twenty second at eight forty five. Then trial assignment
at July twenty ninth, which is at nine o'clock. That's
before the trial assignment Judge, fifth floor of this building,
Courtroom five B. If you fail to appear, Warren's an
issue for your asked if don't show up for trial
could occur in your absence. Stay in touch with your lawyer.
See on the twenty ninth.
The hearing was over in about four minutes. The second
it wrapped, Laura and her mother may to swift exit.
And if I'm being honest, I was still trying to
process exactly what had just happened. So I caught up
with Woodnick after the hearing.
Laura has an excellent lawyer.
I'm quite confident that they're up to something, trying to
work on a resolution that ends this.
One of my biggest takeaways from Laura's hearing on May
twentieth was that her new attorney seems to have this
under control. He came in with a calm command of
the case, and it looks like Laura's listening to him.
Like we said earlier, this is her third attorney in
this matter. She started with private counsel, but then was
assigned to public defender. After Laura was offered a plea deal.
She replaced the public defender with a new private attorney,
Christian Looterers. No one knows how she's affording him, considering
that she and her parents have recently declared bankruptcy. We'll
get to that later, but according to Woodnick.
Laura has an excellent lawyer. Christian Louters is a good
lawyer by all accounts. I think he was doing his job,
and his job is to both prepare for a trial
and also try to find a resolution that allows Laura
to move on with her life. I'm assuming there's active
discussions to resolve the case.
Laura's side has been very tight lipped about their legal strategy.
In May twenty twenty six, I reached out to Laura's
criminal defense attorney Christian Looters. I requested a statement on
the status of her case and whether she plans to
accept the state's plea deal. I gave him a week
to respond. I never heard back, but there is one
person who did get a response from him, investigative journalist
Kristin Thorn. A few months ago, she was working on
a piece for US Weekly about Clayton and Laura when
she reached out to mister Looters. At the time, he
just started on Laura's case, so I called Kristen to
get the details.
I actually ended up delaying my story by two weeks
because he said I really need more time. I just
came on and I respect that. I want to give
him an opportunity to respond, and from a legal perspective
that's important as well. So he asked how much time
can you give me? And I was willing to wait
two weeks, and so then I gave him a deadline,
and he met the deadline and we were able to
get it in the story.
Kristin told me she asked mister Luters if Laura planned
to take the plea deal. Of course he couldn't share
that information, but Kristen's the only journalist I know of
who's received any insight into Laura's legal strategy, So I
asked her to walk us through what he said.
So this is what he responded, and it is quite lengthy,
so I'm going to sum it up just a little bit.
The short answer. He says, all options are on the table.
As a criminal defense attorney, my job is to prepare
each case for three possible outcomes dismissal, case resolution by
agreement meaning plea, or trial, And he says, I'm preparing
for all of these simultaneously. He says, we're starting by
reviewing all available evidence and the case record for anything. Now,
this is where it starts to get interesting. He says
they're looking for anything that may allow us to dismiss
one or more of the charges, such as he says,
major gaps in the investigation, insufficient evidence, procedural errors, or
violations of constitutional rights.
To translate, he's referring to technicalities that can sometimes blow
up criminal cases, like not reading someone's miranda rights or
seizing evidence without a search warrant.
He said, complete dismissal is rare, meaning he knows she's
not going to be able to dismiss all these charges.
But you know, they are going to look at as
much as they can, and he says, at the same time,
I'm preparing for trial if the case isn't resolved by
dismissal or agreement and a jury trial is what will happen.
With that in mind, I'm reviewing all of this.
Her attorney's response is measured. He sounds like he's weighing
all the options and preparing for any outcome. And then
he said this, which I think is an interesting peak
behind the curtain.
A lot of people don't know this, but there is
a lot of cooperation between defense attorneys and prosecutors, and
really that's for judicial efficiency, right. We don't want to
bog down the court system.
If you remember from our last episode, only two percent
of cases go to trial in Maricopa County. Trials are expensive,
and mister Luters is correct in saying that behind the scenes,
prosecutors work closely with defense attorneys to strike a plea deal.
He says, the prosecutor and I can't negotiate a plea
agreement effectively until we're both in relative and he put
relative in brackets, agreement as to what the trial will
look like and what the likely result will be, so
they're both going to have to kind of do their
so and then they're going to come back together. Then
he says this, which is also very I guess juicy
in my mind. We're not yet at the point in
this case where we are ready to seriously consider a
plea agreement, but we're working diligently and that time could
come in the next several weeks.
Keep in mind it's been a few months since mister
Luter sent this statement to Kristen. The impression I got
after being in the room for the May twentieth status
hearing is that Laura's attorney is now considering a plea deal.
Whether Laura will take her attorney's advice is another question.
I asked Greg Woodennick how he would approach this case
if he were representing Laura.
If I were representing someone like Laura who was facing
fourteen felony charges with multiple victims, I'd be trying to
find a way to mitigate the damages. And what that
means is coming up with data to present to the
county attorney to the sentencing judge that somehow assures both
of them that whatever happened leading up to these charges
and whatever resolution is going to be reached short of
a trial, it's not going to happen again.
As you can probably guess. My next question was simple,
how exactly do you track down that kind of data?
The way I would do it is I would bring
her to a respected forensic psychologist, maybe a doctor who's
got some expertise in whatever she is saying. Her personal
challenges are to do a neuropsychological assessment. There may be
some specialized psychometric testing that has done. In light of
what she wrote in the Medium article that she recently
found out she's autistic. I don't know if it's true
or not. We'll find out or not. Maybe we won't
find out. I don't know.
According to Woodnick, the information provided during these evaluations is
typically self reported.
The elephant in the room is that I think anyone
who's listened to your podcast and knows this saga should
be incredulous of any data that's presented by Laura. She
has a pretty good history of doctoring and augmenting information
that comes to and is sent to providers and presenting
it as if it's medical gospel. That said, assuming a
well informed doctor assessed her and was able to get
to the bottom of some of the cause here. I
think it's something we should all embrace because at the
end of the day, a jail consequence is, I think,
what a lot of people are hoping for. But she's
not going to be in jail forever. She may be
in jail for a very short time, if at all. Really,
what we should be concerned about is making sure this
doesn't happen again. And if a doctor can be involved
in a process to make sure that other people aren't
harmed by Laura again, then I think that's something we
should all lean into.
But there's one other issue that might be causing a
hold up in this scenario.
The problem with that, and now says, is it presupposes
that someone's willing to acknowledge what they did was wrong.
And so I don't know how that's going to play
out here because I'm not sure Laura's going to do that,
which would be her opportunity to explain herself at a trial.
In theory, Laura doesn't have to explain anything to anybody.
The burden of proof is squarely on the state to
show beyond a reasonable doubt that Laura committed the fourteen
listed felonies and Laura can sit there quietly and never
explain herself, and that's totally allowable, and that's how the
law works. So we may never get an explanation, or
she can choose to testify and try to explain her behaviors.
We wouldn't know until trial what she chose to do.
The number one question I've been getting since the podcast ended,
and what I'm sure I'll keep getting, is why do
all of Laura's legal proceedings keep getting delayed? I asked
what Nick specifically about her criminal case, and his answer
surprised me.
I think people are frustrated with the delay. I will
tell you there's nothing here out of the ordinary. In
this case, there were two indictments that got strung out
a little bit because of the seven additional charges involving
Greg Gillespie, right, That kind of extended things out a
little bit. But there's no significant delays here.
No significant delays here. This drawn out back and forth
about additional indictments, extended plea deadlines, and new attorneys being
brought on. Apparently that's typical of criminal proceedings.
That said, I think people are worried there's going to
be other delays if there's no plate. For example, on
the eve of trial, medical issues or personal issues trying
to delay the trial. Those are what I refer to
in life and practice as tomorrow problems. We won't know
those problems exist until they exist, and.
As we wait to find out if this case we'll
even go to trial, Clayton is becoming frustrated, understandably.
So I honestly don't have trust. I wish I did
in the court system, but I am hesitant to believe
that my best entry will be served and that of
the victims. I mean, I felt like this case should
have been over years ago. And it's not to say
that we're not going a favorable outcome. It's not to
say that America AC County Attorney's Office isn't doing their.
Job, but I'm not willing to trust fully.
A lot of victims feel this way because remember, this
criminal case is the State of Arizona versus Laura Owens.
The state prosecutors don't work for Clayton or any of
the victims in their cases. For them to settle a
case with the plea agreement is more like a math
equation and less like a battle for justice. Because he's
listed as a victim, Clayton gets advanced notice about what
the prosecutors plan to do with the case. A few
months ago, he learned the terms of the state's first
plea offer. As we heard in a previous episode, he
wasn't happy with it, and unfortunately the specifics of that
plea offer still are not public. Following the hearing on
May twentieth, Clayton me to say he planned to write
a letter to Ed Lier, the lead prosecutor for the
state of Arizona. Clayton wants him to reconsider what's being
offered in the plea deal.
I've gotten very nervous with the silence as we are
waiting trial, which is approaching, but there's just not really
anything occurring, and talking with the other victims, I realized
that I don't want this to just cool off and
her potentially get a reduction in the police So let
me write this letter.
I really want.
The prosecutor to understand that I'm still watching and I'm
still very involved, and I really can't afford for this
to be anything less than what it already is, and
what was offered to me is not enough, and so
please reconsider because Laura's antics will not stop until she
is separated from her environment. Right, she needs to be
taken out of her environment, which means jail are present.
Unlike most other victims, Clayton has a platform and a
dedicated following. He can use that to apply pressure on
the case. It's a privilege.
I decided to post the letter on my page just
to ensure that everyone knows I wrote the letter, including
the Maricopa County Attorney's Office, that they would see it
and go okay, you know, not that they would do this,
but I had the thought what if they say, oh,
we never saw the email, And I was like, I'm
not willing to have that be the answer. So let's
just post it online everywhere so that everyone sees it.
So that way that that can't be an excuse.
I asked Clayton to read the letter. Here's what he wrote.
Mister Leer and Victims Services, I'd like to start by
thanking Rachel Mitchell and everyone at MCO for their work
on this case. As one of many of Laura Owen's victims,
that has been very validating to have the county take
her crime seriously. That said, I remained significantly concerned about
Laura Owens and the possibility of her not receiving any
jail time. My attorney, Greg wood Nick has told me
that nonviolent offenders like Laura often do not receive prison time. However,
Laura is no ordinary offender, and her actions, though not
physically violent, have been acts of violence. I know she
will not stop unless she faces real accountability. I can
already predict that she is busy having a psychologist who
she will give more false information to further attempt to
minimize her culpability, to mitigate her exposure, and further portray
herself as the quote unquote real victim. Since Laura had
fourteen felony charges brought against her, she has shown no
signs of remorse or accountability. I fear she is incapable
of ever acknowledging the damage she's caused, and even if
she did take a plea that does not include incarceration,
she will claim she was forced into it. She knows
how to gain the system and will twist everything to
support her fake victim narrative.
She is relentless.
I would appreciate a plea that stops her from being
on the internet like they do as sex offenders, to
stop her from terrorizing us. She is even posting articles
on medium dot com proclaiming her innocence. Most alarming, she's
back on dating apps. As your investigative team found, Laura
falsely claimed she had not been into it with anyone
since March of twenty twenty two, when in reality, she
had sex the same week she claimed to have had in.
Her course with me.
I have never had sex with her or assaulted her
like she alleged. She is dangerous and will continue to
use the Internet to perpetuate her crimes without incarceration and accountability.
There will be more than Mike, Matt, greg and I
and the others who have not publicly stepped forward. There's
a clear pattern of abuse that will not stop unless
Laura is taken out of her environment in place somewhere
where she can no longer hurt her current victims and
find new ones. While Laura is not a quote unquote
violent offender in the traditional sense, I feel strongly that
we should not overlook the extreme mental, emotional, and financial
damage she has caused. After Judge Matta in the Court
of Appeals ordered her to pay fees for what they
found to be meritless and fraudulent, she has paid nothing
and then lied again in bankruptcy court. Please talk to
the DOJ attorney Jennifer about this for me. She publicly
carried out a defamation scheme against me, hurting my reputation
and taking away my ability to speak to youth about
mental health awareness, which is my passion and one of
the few things that makes me feel alive. The false
accusation and sexual assault claim she launched against me ripped
away the ability for me to make an impact on children,
which caused me to find myself in a depression that
persisted for many months.
On end, she went to the.
Media, using the cover of anonymity to try and destroy me,
emailed job opportunities to allege I was abusive, and tried
to convince tens of thousands of Bachelor fans that I
was a deadbeat father to her fake twins. It has
taken me years to recover from this and will continue
to take years to fully address.
The emotional trauma.
I'm not embarrassed to share that I had suicidal ideation
from this entire experience, and if it were up to Laura,
I truly think she would have me dead. This woman
is incredibly smart, manipulative and a danger to society. She
lacks the ability to feel bad for anyone other than herself,
and if you happen to quote unquote hurt her ego,
she'll spend a lifetime trying to destroy everything you've built,
as seen with Michael Marriccini and her claims against Greg Gillespie.
I am respectfully requesting you reconsider the current plea deal
and ensure Laura faces a penalty where there is a
jail consequence. It is the only way to stop her.
For if you do not, I promise you will see
the day where new victims of Laura Owens arise, and
also potentially the day where you will see one of
the victims finally fall.
A few days after Clayton sent that heartbelt letter to
the Prosecutor's office, he received an unexpected phone call.
They told me they got my email, and I realized
that I didn't fully understand the plea deal.
Clayton's letter caught the attention of the Maricopa County Attorney's office.
Almost immediately. They called Clayton and asked him for an
in person meeting.
It was really nice because they sat down with me,
told me they got my email, and they wanted to
make sure that I was comfortable and understanding as well
of what all has been currently offered, because I realized
that I didn't fully understand the plea deal.
The state prosecutors explained to Clayton the offer on the
table to Laura. Again, this offer is not public, so
we can't speculate because we don't know what it is.
But Clayton has alluded that the plea offer currently does
not include prison time. Clayton wants Laura to see time
behind bars. Here's the part he didn't understand. Prison and
jail are different things.
Prison has vocational programs, counseling programs, social dynamic. Jail, at
least in Arizona, is for shorter term sentences.
Even if Laura doesn't receive a prison sentence, probation can
include jail time. Here's Wudnick again to help explain.
In theory, you can have jail as part of probation.
That's different in prison where they send you away and
you likely may even be leaving Miraclepa County and going
to some prison out in the boondocks.
If Laura decides to accept a plea deal, this would
mean she's pleading guilty to at least some of the charges,
and from there she would be sentenced based on her
guilty plea. The next step is then a sentencing hearing.
The sentencing hearing is a formal hearing where the court
hears from the county attorney representing the state of Arizona
and the victims regarding the impact that the crimes have
had on them.
Clayton and Greg Gillespie, who are both listed as victims
in this case, would have the opportunity to speak directly
to the judge at the sentencing hearing. This is when
they can ask the judge to consider jail time as
part of her sentence.
If it's convincing and the judge feels that we are
in the right with what we're stating, then they can
basically impose what we're requesting.
If she were to plead guilty, Laura would also have
the opportunity to speak at her own sentencing, and other
people are welcome to speak on her behalf.
I think Laura is going to be very tempted to
talk about how she's been victimized by what's happened and
how she's been bullied by social media and listen, I'm
sure there has been some comments made on social media
that are not very flattering. I would, if Laura listened
to me, remind her about who brought this to the
media's attention.
If Laura doesn't receive a prison sentence, she'll likely be
on probation. As we said, that could still include jail time.
It often has a component of what they call colloquially
hotel time, So a lot of times you're allowed to
get out during the day during jail time and go
to work five days a week and come back.
Under some programs, it's basically like a work release program
where you spend nights and weekends in jail. During the
day you can leave to go to work. But there's
a major caveat here. In Arizona. Qualifying for this kind
of work release is an automatic On probation, an offender
has to comply with a specific set of rules. For example,
you have to prove you're gainfully employed, and you must
generally clock at least thirty two hours of work a week.
If an offender doesn't meet these requirements, they can end
up spending more time behind bars.
I do think an appropriate consequence has are incarcerating for
a period of time, though.
Clayton feels the same way. For him, real accountability means incarceration.
When he met with prosecutors, that's what he told them.
I asked for a readjustment of the plea, which it
may or may not occur, but I asked for at
least a year minimum of just jail or prison.
So in the eleventh hour he's been ramping up communication
with prosecutors.
Nobody knows Laura better than we do as the victims.
While the prosecutor has done a great job and has
put her feet to the flame, it's important for us
to be able to explain that, hey, this isn't enough.
You would think that a felony would deter somebody from
continued bad behavior, but trust us when we tell you,
as the victims of Laura Owens, that it will not
stop her.
We have to remember that if Laura is convicted, either
at trial or through a plea, the law is going
to view her as a first time non violent offender.
Would Nick explains why that matters.
Generally speaking, people don't go to prison as first time
convicted nonviolent offenders. That said, I get why everyone is frustrated,
and I think there's a lot of stirring that she
belongs in prison. That said, the appropriate consequence this is
going to be the consequence that the judge gives, and
we need to trust in the process.
For now, we wait. As for what's next, Laura has
a public hearing on Monday, June twenty ninth. That's where
we'll likely find out whether she intends to take the plea.
Clayton will be in the courtroom.
I don't want the judge thinking that, oh, I'm just
too busy and I have other stuff going on. I
want to show up, even if it's a five minute
status conference, and just be like, hey, I'm here because
I've been severely impacted and I want this woman locked away.
This is serious to me.
We also have to brace for the reality that this
might drag out even longer. The expiration on the plea
deal has already been extended, and it could happen again.
Here's Clayton.
I was told that there will not be a further
kicking of the can, so I want to believe that.
So I'm going to just for that right now, give
the Americopa County Attorney's Office the benefit of the doubt
here and say there won't be I don't want to
even play the WEF scenario.
I mean, I'll just say this.
If it does get kicked down the road, I'll be disappointed,
But I mean, what can I do at this point?
Would Nick also believes we're getting close to a resolution here.
If they need to extend it, it's for a good reason.
I don't think it's going to happen. But if they
have to do that, that's okay. That's how the process works.
I think the case is about to come to a head.
Either we're going to know trial is supposed to start soon,
or she's going to enter a plea. Sitting here today,
my guess is that she's going to enter in agreement. Certainly,
if I were her defense counsel, I would be encouraging it,
but that's just me.
Clayton, however, sees it differently.
I think we're going to trial, especially after talking to
the prosecutor and realizing that Greg and I have the
ability if she takes the plea to go in front
of the judge and ask for harsher sanctions.
I think that's a very big risk for her.
Not only does she have to admit that she had
committed wrongdoing, but then she runs the risk of us
being able to successfully prove to the judge that we
need harsher sanctions, and that basically could be the end
of it for her. I think she really believes that
she still hasn't out.
Monday, June twenty ninth is a big day for Laura Owens.
We might find out if she's taking the plea in
her criminal case in Arizona, and there's something else happening
on that same day, an important filing in Laura's domestic
violence restraining order with Mike Marriccini. We spent a few
episodes of the podcast going into his story and the
DVRO Laura filed against him. The last update you heard
was that the DVRO had been dismissed by a San
Francisco judge, but it wasn't quite over because Laura is
planning to appeal that dismissal. They are completely different legal
battles in different states, but in Laura's mind they could
be tied together because this is where the two timelines collide.
Her repellent brief for the DVRO case is due on Monday,
June twenty ninth, the exact same day as her criminal
status hearing in Arizona. We know she's deeply invested in
what happens with Mike Marriuccini. After reporting on this case
for so long, I believe that having a DVRO against
Mike is her top priority. If she pleads guilty in Arizona,
that could impact what she files in San Francisco, And
of course the reddits luths are speculating about what this
means for Laura.
She can't plead guilty or this whole DVRO process falls apart.
I think she's trying to get the DVRO granted and
then may consider a plea.
I believe she won't take a plea deal solely because
if she admits she lied, it might make people question
her alleged v claims related to Mike.
If she takes the plea deal, everything else she has
on hand may not have any merit.
If she pleads guilty, she'll lose that control over her
case and claims of Mike. I think she's going to
go to trial.
It seems like Laura's criminal case might finally be coming
to a head. I'll be following the developments closely, both
in Arizona and California. In the meantime, we have one
more episode coming out tomorrow. Like I said, there's been
a lot going on over the past six weeks, and
I think it's stuff you'll want to hear.
The email that came back to me was signed by
Ron and Jan.
I received an email that said a privacy complaint had
been made against my entire YouTube channel.
Ron and Jan filed a last minute petition.
We were all just like jaws to the floor, like,
oh my god.
Ron made it very clear that they support her and
they believe that she was pregnant.
Trap.
Thank you so much for listening. Please be sure to
follow Love Trapped on Apple Podcasts, the iHeartRadio 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 or have a
similar story to share, email us at Love Trapped pod
at gmail dot com. That's Love Trapped at gmail dot 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 Fetterman. Written, produced and hosted by me Stephanie Young.
Our story editor is Monique le Boord. Additional production support
from Todd Gans. Our production manager is Kristin Melchiri. 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. Thank you to our voice actors
Caitlin Golden, Todd Gans, Kerrie Hartman, 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 Bains Music library provided by Mob Music. A
specially thanks to Carrie Lieberman, Will Pearson, Jessica Crincheck, Ali
Canter and the entire iHeart podcast team. And for more
podcasts from iHeart, visit the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or
wherever you get your podcasts.