Speaker 1: Hey, it's Stephanie back with another bonus episode. In May
Speaker 1: twenty twenty five, Laura Owens was indicted on seven felony
Speaker 1: charges in the state of Arizona. Those charges were all
Speaker 1: related to her conduct with Clayton Eckerd. The Maricopa County
Speaker 1: Attorney's Office shopped everyone when they released a one hundred
Speaker 1: and eighteen page investigation report detailing the evidence they found
Speaker 1: to support those charges, which you heard about in episode ten.
Speaker 1: Last week, I caught up with Clayton's attorney, Greg Woodennick
Speaker 1: to dive into the jaw dropping investigation report a little deeper.
Speaker 1: So in episode ten, we obviously talk about the investigation
Speaker 1: report that the Maricopa County Attorney's Office released. It was
Speaker 1: released in January of twenty twenty six. I guess my
Speaker 1: first question for you is did you reach it and
Speaker 1: as you were reading it what stood out to you?
Speaker 2: So much of it stuck out to me, but more
Speaker 2: than the data that I was reading from the investigators
Speaker 2: was how I felt. It was just unbelievably affirming to
Speaker 2: see that what we had suspected for so many years
Speaker 2: was so much worse than we suspected.
Speaker 1: Is it normal to see an investigation report like this.
Speaker 2: I see investigative reports all the time because I defend people,
Speaker 2: and when you defend people, you're entitled to see the
Speaker 2: work product of the investigator. So I see these sorts
Speaker 2: of reports all the time. This was particularly detailed, and
Speaker 2: obviously was extra interesting to me because I'd been dealing
Speaker 2: with Clayton previously, Greg, and had gotten to know Michael Marriccini,
Speaker 2: and even had knowledge of another victim, so seeing this
Speaker 2: in writing was quite something.
Speaker 1: This is obviously a very cumbersome investigative report. There are
Speaker 1: one hundred and eighteen pages. There are a lot of
Speaker 1: inner views in here, including Clayton, Greg Gillespie, Laura's mom,
Speaker 1: jan Black. I don't see an interview on these pages
Speaker 1: from you. Did you do an interview with the Maricopa
Speaker 1: County investigators?
Speaker 2: I didn't formally interview with them, but obviously I knew
Speaker 2: that there was an open investigation.
Speaker 1: You were also listed as a witness for the upcoming
Speaker 1: criminal trial. How do they tell you that you're a witness?
Speaker 2: Like?
Speaker 1: How did you find out that you were on the
Speaker 1: witness list?
Speaker 2: I think I saw it the way everyone else did.
Speaker 2: The document became public, I saw my name there, and
Speaker 2: I was absolutely not surprised. It was obvious to me
Speaker 2: that they would list me as a witness. Whether or
Speaker 2: not I testify is a different question and certainly not
Speaker 2: a decision that I get to make. It's a decision
Speaker 2: that the prosecutor makes and or obviously, Laura's welcome to
Speaker 2: call me as a witness. I will testify truthfully and
Speaker 2: answer questions to the best of my ability.
Speaker 1: There were sixty four people on the witness list. I
Speaker 1: was surprised to see that many names on the list.
Speaker 1: Were you surprised to see that many names?
Speaker 2: I think it's a testament to how many people have
Speaker 2: been involved and harmed by the behavior.
Speaker 1: Just because there's sixty four people on this witness list,
Speaker 1: that doesn't mean that they'll all be called to testify
Speaker 1: right now.
Speaker 2: In fact, I think sometimes prosecutors list everyone they're supposed
Speaker 2: to share, all potential witnesses, and I'm assuming that's what
Speaker 2: they did. It's very possible that I don't get called,
Speaker 2: But if the trial does go forward, I think a
Speaker 2: decent amount of those people may be called as witnesses.
Speaker 2: It all depends on how the trial plays out.
Speaker 1: As you're reading through these one hundred and eighteen pages.
Speaker 1: You obviously said that a lot of the things that
Speaker 1: your office had looked into were affirmed once you read that.
Speaker 1: Was there anything specifically that really stood out to you?
Speaker 2: Three letters hCG.
Speaker 1: And what was interesting in there about the hCG.
Speaker 2: I think Laura is going to have some explaining to
Speaker 2: do should she choose to testify.
Speaker 1: As we go through the investigation report, there's a lot
Speaker 1: of instances where the deposition you did with Laura on March,
Speaker 1: which first was cited. How does it feel that your
Speaker 1: deposition and your questioning showed up so many times?
Speaker 2: We didn't know what we know. That's the odd thing
Speaker 2: about this. I brought Laura in for a deposition to
Speaker 2: ask her questions. We obviously knew about Michael Marriccini. I
Speaker 2: obviously knew quite well about Greg Gillespie. I was shocked
Speaker 2: to learn about Matt. I mean just shocked to learn
Speaker 2: about Matt, which is weird because we suspected there was
Speaker 2: someone else. But her blase presentation about there being a
Speaker 2: fourth man who had accused her of fabricating a pregnancy
Speaker 2: or whatever her testimony was was a bit shocking. I mean,
Speaker 2: I remember turning to Isabelle and locking eyes with her,
Speaker 2: wondering if that actually had just happened. I don't think
Speaker 2: that's captured on the audio of the deposition transcript, but
Speaker 2: I remember literally being like, what the fuck just happened.
Speaker 2: I think we actually took a break and walked into
Speaker 2: my office disgusted because we were both so like, holy cow,
Speaker 2: there's four men who have claimed this, the fact that
Speaker 2: the deposition is important to the investigation. I mean, I'm
Speaker 2: glad I could provide it. I just did what I
Speaker 2: normally would do in a deposition, which is we prepared
Speaker 2: for it. I knew what we were going to ask.
Speaker 2: I knew that the territory that I was going to cover.
Speaker 2: Don't know that Laura should have answered all the questions
Speaker 2: that I asked her. Maybe that's a better question. I've
Speaker 2: kind of been surprised along the way that she hasn't
Speaker 2: taken some advice and invoked I think I advised her
Speaker 2: during her deposition two or three times that she didn't
Speaker 2: have to answer questions and that the answers to her
Speaker 2: questions could be used against her in a criminal process.
Speaker 2: A lot of times, when people are faced with the
Speaker 2: prospect of felony prosecution. They choose not to answer questions
Speaker 2: and they invoke their Fifth Amendment right. But Laura did
Speaker 2: not do that in the deposition, which I think was
Speaker 2: probably tremendously helpful to the investigators.
Speaker 1: Something else we see in the investigation report is that
Speaker 1: the pregnant belly video was her sister Sarah's. We also
Speaker 1: see that the ultrasound that use was her sister Sarah's.
Speaker 1: That being said, I know you spent years investigating this
Speaker 1: in your office for Clayton's case. Did you ever speak
Speaker 1: with Sarah?
Speaker 2: I never spoke with Sarah.
Speaker 1: Did you ever try to reach out to her sister Sarah?
Speaker 2: Of course, of course I did. I think I sent
Speaker 2: her a couple of femails and no response. No, no response.
Speaker 1: Greg Woodnick emailed Sarah Owens Navarro on February twenty sixth,
Speaker 1: twenty twenty four. I'd like to share an excerpt from
Speaker 1: that email. Here's what Woodnick wrote, as I trust you
Speaker 1: are aware my office represents Clayton ECKERD in the legal
Speaker 1: matter involving your sister, Laura Owens, currently pending in Arizona.
Speaker 1: I am assuming you do not want to be involved
Speaker 1: in this mess, but I think you may already be
Speaker 1: and are not aware. While I am sure you know
Speaker 1: some of what has occurred, multiple men have alleged that
Speaker 1: your sister fabricated pregnancies and medical documents to support her
Speaker 1: pregnancy fiction. In the current matter, your sister reached out
Speaker 1: directly to the media claiming that mister Eckerd was ignoring
Speaker 1: her quote unquote twins. Paternity tests failed to confirm a
Speaker 1: pregnancy existed, while the media attention she initiated caused other
Speaker 1: men to find one another and compare notes. Those notes
Speaker 1: show a pattern of faked pregnancies as a ruse to
Speaker 1: force relationships, including Laura creating relationship quote unquote contracts assuring
Speaker 1: promises of an abortion if these men agreed to date her,
Speaker 1: and alleged falsified medical records. While of course you bear
Speaker 1: no responsibility for the behavior of your sister, it has
Speaker 1: been brought to our attention that Laura has presented videos that,
Speaker 1: upon close inspection, appeared to be of use celebrating your
Speaker 1: pregnancy at roughly twenty five to thirty weeks with your
Speaker 1: father Ron, and has been claiming the videos are of herself.
Speaker 1: Laura's actions are about to land her with very unpleasant
Speaker 1: legal consequences, including possible criminal perjury charges. Just to put
Speaker 1: this into perspective, this email was written four months before
Speaker 1: Clayton and Laura's family trial and over a year before
Speaker 1: Laura was indicted on felony charges, including perjury in the
Speaker 1: state of Arizona. Sarah never responded to Woodnick, but we
Speaker 1: know she received the email. That's because a Freedom of
Speaker 1: Information Act request uncovered a bar complaint Laura filed against
Speaker 1: Greg Woodnick. In that bar complaint, Laura acknowledged that her
Speaker 1: sister received an email from Woodnick. There was another part
Speaker 1: of the investigation report that I wanted to talk about
Speaker 1: with Woodnick. It involves the allegation Laura made to the
Speaker 1: judge in Greg Gillespie's case, where she speculated that Woodnick
Speaker 1: and Greg Gillespie orchestrated a violent sexual assault against her.
Speaker 1: Laura's mom, Jan Black, was interviewed in the investigation report,
Speaker 1: and we see all of the details. Something that stood
Speaker 1: out to me was Jan's story she told investigators about
Speaker 1: what happened to Laura in March twenty twenty two when
Speaker 1: she alleged that you and Greg Gillespie were involved in
Speaker 1: an alleged rape so I want to read this part
Speaker 1: to you. In the investigation report from jan Black's interview,
Speaker 1: Miss black Owens told us that Laura ended her relationship
Speaker 1: with Gillespie in August twenty twenty one, and then in
Speaker 1: February twenty twenty two, Laura connected with a guy on Bumble,
Speaker 1: a dating app. He Andrew, lived in Hoboken, New Jersey,
Speaker 1: but said he was going to relocate to Scottsdale. During
Speaker 1: their video chats, Andrew suggested that she traveled to Hoboken
Speaker 1: to visit with him, knowing that her sister Sarah lived
Speaker 1: in New York City. I asked if Sarah knew Andrew beforehand.
Speaker 1: Miss black Owens indicated not. Laura decided to go to
Speaker 1: Hoboken to see her sister. Miss black Owen stated that
Speaker 1: Andrew was very particular about the time of Laura's arrival
Speaker 1: and that she takes public transportation instead of an uber.
Speaker 1: Laura arrived at the door, and Andrew answered while on
Speaker 1: the phone and handed her a drink as pre arranged.
Speaker 1: Laura consumed the drink, felt that she he was drugged
Speaker 1: and then violently assaulted, according to Miss black Owens. Miss
Speaker 1: black Owens feels that this was a targeted attack, which
Speaker 1: coincided with mister Woodnock's ultimatum to drop the suit against Gillespie.
Speaker 1: Miss black Owens recounted Laura's description of the evening and
Speaker 1: her opinion that the attack was live streamed. I told
Speaker 1: Miss black Owens that I understand that this is part
Speaker 1: of the big picture. However, it's outside of the purview
Speaker 1: of what we're investigating. Laura contacted the Hoboken Police Department
Speaker 1: and spoke with a detective. Laura reported that she was
Speaker 1: afraid and did not wish to name Andrew in the
Speaker 1: police report. Miss black Owens indicated that the FBI is
Speaker 1: involved in the case and provided further detail of this.
Speaker 1: Miss black Owens told us that the assault occurred in
Speaker 1: March twenty twenty two, and that Andrew text Laura again
Speaker 1: in November twenty twenty two, said that he was in
Speaker 1: Scottsdale and asked if she wanted to meet. Laura feared
Speaker 1: that Andrew wanted to quote finish the job. Miss black
Speaker 1: Owens stated that all this comes together. At the time
Speaker 1: of the trial with Gillespie, Laura was frightened and sent
Speaker 1: course respondence to the court requesting to appear virtually indicating
Speaker 1: that she believed that mister Woodnick and Gillespie were involved
Speaker 1: in her attack. Miss black Owens reported that the court
Speaker 1: sent this request to mister Woodnick. Also, Miss black Owens
Speaker 1: feels that mister Woodnick and Gillespie wanted to damage Laura's
Speaker 1: reputation to make her seem as if she were an
Speaker 1: unhinged crazy girl if she were to testify. So this
Speaker 1: goes back to this allegation from Laura that you and
Speaker 1: Greg Gillespie were involved in an alleged rape in Hoboken
Speaker 1: in March of twenty twenty two. We heard about that
Speaker 1: in episode five. After hearing that, my question for you is,
Speaker 1: is this the first time you've heard all of these
Speaker 1: details that were attached to that.
Speaker 2: It's bullshit. I don't know other words than this is
Speaker 2: just not true. I contacted the police. I contacted the FBI.
Speaker 2: My office, obviously concerned with the allegations, tried to find
Speaker 2: out what the hell Laura was talking about when she
Speaker 2: wrote that letter to the judge, and none of it
Speaker 2: bore out. None of it. I was never contacted by
Speaker 2: the police, I was never contacted by the Federal Bureau
Speaker 2: of Investigation, and I had contacted them inviting them to
Speaker 2: come talk to me about these ridiculous and horrific allegations.
Speaker 2: None of it was true. That did not happen. And certainly,
Speaker 2: if something bad happened to Laura, which I was not there,
Speaker 2: I personally don't believe any of that is true, but
Speaker 2: certainly I wasn't involved in it. If it was true,
Speaker 2: I'm sorry. I'm sorry she had something horrible happened to her.
Speaker 2: I don't think it happened, Stephanie. I think it's an
Speaker 2: entire lie.
Speaker 1: Is there anything else from the investigation report that you
Speaker 1: want to talk about?
Speaker 2: My general comments on the investigative report is the criminal
Speaker 2: process needs to play out. It's important to me, Stephanie,
Speaker 2: that if Laura wants to take this to trial, that
Speaker 2: she has the most fair trial possible. I want her
Speaker 2: to have a great trial. I want her to have
Speaker 2: a great defense to her trial. I believe that, as
Speaker 2: a true believer in the system, our criminal justice system
Speaker 2: is excellent. She'll have an opportunity if she wants to
Speaker 2: testify in front of a jury of her peers and
Speaker 2: answer questions, or she can just invoke and not answer questions.
Speaker 2: I don't know what her choice is going to be
Speaker 2: up until this point, she has testified, and she said
Speaker 2: some pretty egregiously inconsistent statements, I think, which is the
Speaker 2: predicate of her being charged with perjury. But I hope
Speaker 2: she has a fair trial and that there's a just
Speaker 2: resolution and a just consequence. If she went to trial
Speaker 2: and she got acquitted because a jury of her peers
Speaker 2: felt that the state did not beat the burden, so
Speaker 2: be it. I'm a believer in the system. That's okay.
Speaker 2: I don't think that's going to happen. I think the
Speaker 2: jury is going to look at her statements and the
Speaker 2: records and the video that they found, and the physical
Speaker 2: evidence that they found, and her prior testimony, and I
Speaker 2: think she's going to be convicted of multiple felonies. That's
Speaker 2: my belief.
Speaker 1: Obviously, Clayton is listed as a victim in the criminal proceedings.
Speaker 1: You have also been someone that has been affected by
Speaker 1: Laura's fabricated stories. You're not listed as a victim, But
Speaker 1: what does justice look like for you.
Speaker 2: I'm not a victim here, but undoubtedly I've been impacted
Speaker 2: by Laura's allegations. I'm supposed to have thick skin because
Speaker 2: I'm a lawyer or whatever, but it impacts other people.
Speaker 2: I mean, obviously it impacted my family. I talked about that,
Speaker 2: and I went and I listened to your episode and
Speaker 2: I heard myself get emotional, And the truth is, it
Speaker 2: was really fucking emotional. It sucked, It really sucked when
Speaker 2: it happened. But it's not just me and my family
Speaker 2: that got impacted. There are other people. Hearing how that
Speaker 2: impacted Danielle was so much different to me than hearing
Speaker 2: it from Michael. I know Danielle, I've spoken to her before,
Speaker 2: but hearing her have that intimate conversation with you expressing
Speaker 2: how it impacted their family Michael's career trajectory just causes
Speaker 2: me to think of all the other collateral people that
Speaker 2: have been damaged by her, just verbal diarrhea of lies
Speaker 2: and ali gations and lack of accountability.
Speaker 1: I really thought this conversation was important to have with
Speaker 1: you today. You have been kind of a main character
Speaker 1: throughout this podcast, and I just wanted to tell you
Speaker 1: thank you for your time today and for kind of
Speaker 1: walking us through a lot of the complicated legal matters
Speaker 1: in this podcast. But thank you.
Speaker 2: I appreciate that. I don't think I ever wanted to
Speaker 2: be a main character in this story. I didn't know
Speaker 2: what we were getting involved in. And I think back
Speaker 2: Stephanie too early days with Greg Gillespie in my office,
Speaker 2: and the correspondence that Laura was sending in the allegation
Speaker 2: she was making long before she suggested that Greg and
Speaker 2: I were involved in some sort of orchestrated rape. Apparently
Speaker 2: now I'm learning and hoboken. I didn't even know that,
Speaker 2: And I remember thinking then that this story was insane.
Speaker 2: If I only knew, if I only knew that given time,
Speaker 2: we would find these other victims would come forward and
Speaker 2: want to part dissipate in this process. If I only
Speaker 2: knew that the social media world was going to find
Speaker 2: this story as fascinating as they did, if I only
Speaker 2: knew that this organization loosely associated JFC was going to
Speaker 2: be these amazing detectives helping with data collection. I knew
Speaker 2: none of it back then, but at the time I
Speaker 2: thought the story was spectacular. I thought it was a
Speaker 2: crazy story I'd heard in a while. And now, looking
Speaker 2: back three years later and the story is not even over,
Speaker 2: it's kind of humbling. I appreciate how you've told this story,
Speaker 2: but it's not a story. I mean, the reality is
Speaker 2: is that Laura really fucked with a lot of people's lives.
Speaker 2: And the truth is that Laura has an absolute history
Speaker 2: of fabricating allegations when she is in a corner. She
Speaker 2: did it on the stand in Judge Modes' courtroom. It'll
Speaker 2: be interesting to see if she does it again in
Speaker 2: a criminal trial.
Speaker 1: Thanks so much for listening, and stay tuned for new
Speaker 1: episodes in bonus content on the Love Trapped Feed.