A Rebuttal to “Opinion: Rachel Mitchell Turned One Disabled Woman’s Love Life Into a 14-Count Felony Spectacle”

A mysterious “Laura Owens volunteer” has spoken out on the freshly updated “Justice For Laura” website. Thankfully archived by JusticeForClayton.com before the record could be revised… again.

What follows is not journalism, not advocacy, and not analysis. It’s an 18,000-word attempt to rewrite a public record that already exists – one that asks the reader to ignore sworn testimony, documented contradictions, and judicial findings in favor of a familiar fantasy: That the serial liar is actually the victim, and everyone else is just being mean.

Let’s get something straight right out of the gate:
This article doesn’t “question power.”
It launders a narrative, one that collapses the moment you stop reading press releases selectively and actually compare sworn statements to objective evidence.

And that comparison has already been done. Exhaustively. With receipts. For free. By people who didn’t get paid to ignore inconvenient facts.

The Big Lie: “This Was Just Messy Romance”

No.
This wasn’t “romantic chaos.”
This was repeated, documented, sworn deception across multiple venues, over multiple years, involving multiple men, multiple courts, and multiple fabricated records.

That’s not a situationship.
That’s a pattern.

Communities like r/JusticeForClayton, VictimsOfLauraOwens.com (VOLO), and JusticeForClayton.com didn’t invent that pattern, they mapped it. Timeline by timeline. Statement by statement. Exhibit by exhibit.

Oh, and here’s the part this article desperately avoids saying out loud:

Laura Owens wasn’t charged because Clayton Echard is famous.
She was charged because the lies didn’t stop when the relationship ended. They escalated when the courts got involved.

The Pregnancy Tests Talking Point (a.k.a. “But hCG!”)

This article leans hard on early positive pregnancy tests like they’re some kind of Uno Reverse card.

Here’s the problem, and this is well documented across JusticeForClayton and VOLO:

• Positive hCG tests ≠ proof of pregnancy

• hCG can be elevated for reasons unrelated to pregnancy

• And most importantly: the tests do not match the gestational claims she later swore to under oath

That mismatch is the entire case.

You don’t get indicted because you once peed on a stick.
You get indicted because you swore you were X weeks pregnant while producing evidence that could not, medically or chronologically, support that claim, then doubled down with altered media, fabricated documentation, and mutually exclusive sworn testimony.

That’s not a miscarriage misunderstanding.
That’s material misrepresentation.

“She Never Wanted Money” Is Not a Defense

Cute talking point. Completely irrelevant.

Fraud doesn’t require profit – it requires intent to deceive and use of deception to obtain something of value.

And under Arizona law, “value” includes:

• Court orders

• Legal leverage

• Forced participation in litigation

• Control over another person’s actions

• Reputational harm used as pressure

You don’t need a payout when you’re weaponizing the court system itself.

Orders of Protection Are Not Verdicts

The article treats Orders of Protection like they are findings of fact.

They are not.

An OOP is a temporary civil remedy issued under a low evidentiary standard, often without cross-examination and frequently out of an abundance of caution. Anyone who has spent time in Arizona family court knows this.

What does matter are sworn statements, and that is where Laura Owens’ story repeatedly collapses.

The Internet Didn’t Create This Case — It Preserved It

The article wants you to believe an “online mob” conjured fourteen felony counts out of vibes and fandom.

What actually happened?

• The internet archived filings

• Compared timelines

• Preserved deleted statements

• Logged contradictions

• Matched claims to medical impossibilities

• And refused to let the record be quietly rewritten

That isn’t vigilantism.
That’s open-source accountability.

The reason this case survived sunlight is because it couldn’t survive silence.

A Quick Word About the “Justice for Laura Volunteer”

One final detail deserves attention, because it reframes everything you just read.

This article is not written by a journalist.
Not by a credentialed advocate.
Not by a disclosed third party.

It is authored by a conveniently anonymous “Justice for Laura volunteer.” No name. No background. No explanation of relationship to the defendant. Just a sprawling, hyper-detailed narrative that mirrors, almost beat for beat, the same talking points, omissions, and rhetorical style that have appeared repeatedly in Laura Owens’ own filings, emails, and prior online writings.

For anyone familiar with this case, this should sound painfully familiar.

Owens has a long-documented history of:

• Writing under aliases

• Drafting “independent” summaries about herself

• Circulating her own narratives through third-party framing

• Recasting personal grievances as objective legal analysis

• Attempting to steer public perception when judicial forums stop cooperating

The idea that a mysterious “volunteer” just happened to publish an 18-minute essay:

• Omitting the same damaging contradictions

• Repeating the same selective facts

• Adopting the same voice

• And appearing only after a superseding indictment dramatically increased her criminal exposure

…is not a coincidence. It’s a pattern – something Laura Owens is painfully familiar with.

This article didn’t appear when the paternity case collapsed.
It didn’t appear when the first indictment dropped.
It appeared when the legal runway narrowed and the consequences became unavoidable.

When the courts stop buying the story, the next move is often to try the audience.

So no, this is not neutral advocacy.
It reads like one last attempt to manipulate the public narrative, preserve face, and soften the ground before what may very well be years of criminal proceedings that cannot be argued away in blog posts or anonymous op-eds.

In a courtroom, there are no “volunteers.”
There are defendants, and records that don’t lie, even when people do.

 

Rachel Mitchell didn’t “turn a love life into a felony spectacle.”

Laura Owens turned false statements into sworn testimony.
She turned private lies into legal filings.
She turned fabricated evidence into court records.
And she kept going, across years, men, and venues, until the pattern became impossible to ignore.

The justice system didn’t overreact.
It finally caught up.

And no amount of anonymous narrative control will change what the record already shows, in black and white, with timestamps.

Still fighting.
Never stopping.