Featured

Bachelor Order of Protection Hearing Reveals Bombshell in Owens v. Echard – PJ Media

The case of Laura Owens v. Claton Echard, a former Bachelor on ABC’s hit television show, is far more complicated than it should be due to the ever-changing testimonies of the plaintiff, Owens. Owens claimed Echard got her pregnant in May 2023 with twins, which he disputes. He says there was never any sexual intercourse that could lead to a pregnancy and Owens faked being pregnant. 





Owens took him to court for months and never proved that she was pregnant at all. Owens only produced positive HCG urine tests and one HCG blood test in October that showed no viable pregnancy, and two paternity tests came back “little to no fetal DNA.” By December, Owens claimed she miscarried but didn’t know when. She has since provided three different explanations for the miscarriage including a confusing description of “vanishing twin” syndrome, an early miscarriage in July, or one in October or September. 

To date, Owens has not produced even one medical record showing she received any obstetric care, though she claimed she had a “high-risk” pregnancy and was seeing specialists in the field. Despite the alleged miscarriage, however, Owens showed up in court in late October looking heavily pregnant. Echard has alleged that she wore a fake moon bump.

Two other men have come forward, Greg Gillespie and Mike Maraccini, who have given documentation that showed they had similar experiences with Owens, who also dragged both of them to court to litigate issues surrounding alleged pregnancies and alleged domestic violence. In Maraccini’s case, Owens sent him documents claiming to have had ovarian cancer and one ovary removed as well as a pregnancy with twins. 

She has since claimed those documents were faked (without saying by whom). The public watching the case raised $5,600 in one evening to help Maraccini get his laptop analyzed by a forensic analyst to prove that Owens sent the documents claiming cancer and pregnancy. The report was released today and says that Owens sent all the documents to Maraccini.





There have been many big moments during this paternity battle that I have reported on here, here, and here. But this new revelation might be the most outrageous yet. Owens not only filed a paternity action in August of 2023 against Echard, but she also filed for an Order of Protection Owens (OOP) against Echard claiming that she was in fear that he would harm her or the “babies.”

The public did not have access to that hearing until this week when it was uploaded to YouTube. It showed how severely Owens’ stories have changed. Recently in a court filing, she accused podcaster Dave Neal of fabricating an ultrasound video sent to him on October 12. In Echard’s response, it was revealed that Owens herself sent that very same video to Reality Steve, Bachelor podcaster. That video was identical to a video that was posted on YouTube six years before Owens claimed it was her sonogram from 2023. Neal matched up the two perfectly on his YouTube channel and it is evident that they are the same video with a different header added to include Owens’s name.

Owens also sent a still photo of a sonogram to Echard and Neal claiming it was her 21-week-old son. In the email to Neal on Oct. 12, 2023, she writes, “The last imaging was troubling to me because I thought the boy’s profile looked kind of weird (attached), but the sonographer didn’t say anything. I guess I just don’t know how to read these things and am probably overanalyzing. The girl’s looked fine.”





Despite these emails from her email address with these documents attached, Owens claimed through her attorney David Gingras that she had nothing to do with either of them and that Neal received them from someone who fabricated them. But in the new hearing footage from the OOP hearing in October, Owens very clearly states that she sent both the video and the 21-week sonogram photo to Echard claiming it was their son. (She sent the same image and video to Reality Steve, who forwarded it to Neal.)

The judge refused to look at the evidence that Echard brought to court including the video above where Neal proves the ultrasound was stolen from an old YouTube video and ruled against Echard and took away his rights based on a meme posted on Reddit. Owens claimed that Echard had posted an unflattering meme of her and her alleged pregnant belly on Reddit. 

In the meme, Owens is depicted on a Spirit Halloween costume package as “Annonymous Woman Costume” and it mocks her as a pregnancy faker. The meme says the costume includes “Sports bra, leggings, belly bump, unbrushed wig, ‘real’ sonogram.” For this crime of allegedly posting a funny meme, Echard is a “harasser” and a “terrorizer” of women according to Judge Doody. Echard has always maintained he did not make the meme nor did he post it.





But the one thing that tied Echard to this meme, claimed Owens, was the sonogram photo the image is holding. Owens claimed that Echard was the only person she sent that to so he had to be the one who posted it. It was on that basis that the judge granted her order of protection against Clayton. 

Since the hearing footage has come out, the Reddit poster who goes by the name Jenn who made the meme has come forward and claims to have copied that sonogram from a public file-sharing site that Owens shared with the public to “prove” her pregnancy claims. Jenn sent PJ Media several documents showing that she put the meme together and informed us that she also reached out to Echard’s attorney to prove her identity.

To recap: Owens put “evidence” of pregnancy on a drive and posted it publicly, sent it to media, went to Page Six, The Sun, and admitted under oath that ten people including media had access to the photo of her alleged pregnant belly photo, but Echard got slapped with a harassment order for it being circulated online.

Owens’s lawyer David Gingras is currently claiming on his blog that there is no October sonogram. “I don’t know what you mean by the ‘October sonogram.’ To my knowledge, there is no ‘October sonogram.’ It’s possible you’re talking about one or more fake sonograms that someone else created and then sent to certain online media people. Laura has denied having anything to do with those, and so far, I haven’t seen any evidence to the contrary.”





I guess Gingras didn’t get the transcripts or watch the October 25 hearing of his own client telling Judge Doody that she is the one who sent the October sonogram and video to Echard and the media. 

The October sonogram raises another problem with Owens’s new miscarriage tale. Her current expert, Dr. Medchill, wrote a report stating that the miscarriage she had happened before 20 weeks, which he said would be before Oct. 16, 2023, but may have been as early as October 9. At one point July 23 was also floated as a miscarriage date. None of it explains why she continued to claim she was pregnant through October and November. 

Does anyone else see the problem here? If she did miscarry before October 9 (and as far back as possibly July 23), as her expert said she must have, then everything she did after that point was fraud on the court including showing up to a hearing in late October with a huge distended belly and claiming on November 2, under oath again to be 100% pregnant with twins. She also claimed she had just seen Dr. Higley, an OBGYN, on October 27. Dr. Higley was unable to produce any patient records for her other than a scheduled but quickly canceled appointment.

The trial is still set for June 10 despite Gingras’s constant attempts to derail and delay it. Meanwhile, the self-styled “free speech” lawyer, when he’s not threatening journalists and YouTubers with defamation lawsuits for having unfavorable opinions of Owens, is posting wild statements on his blog claiming that perjury isn’t that big a deal. 





“What if Laura knowingly lied? Can she be punished then? The answer is kind of surprising. MAYBE YES, AND MAYBE NO….people ARE allowed to file cases they know are 100% false/fraudulent (I know that’s shocking, but bear with me). People are allowed to LIE in their papers. They can even commit perjury (in certain situations).” I wonder if the judge, who has had to waste months of her life and the county’s resources on this ridiculous case, will see it that way.

via GIPHY




Source link