What The Hell Is A “Vanishing Twin”?

An anonymous person recently posted this comment on my blog.  Many others have said similar things.

I think it’s important enough to warrant a direct response:

I’m probably a minority in that I’m following this case but not necessarily part of the “jfc” crew. I don’t think it’s fair to make assumptions until now evidence is seen though I admit all evidence out there really supports Clayton’s side. I agree it’s reasonable to assume she did think she was pregnant (or even was early on)… Heck, Clayton believed it enough to take a test. I’m sure if you really did NOTHING that was even at risk of getting someone pregnant you wouldn’t bat an eye. BUT here is where I think the difference is that makes everyone mad. She didn’t just miscarry and then move on………. she faked ultrasounds (which she admitted) and while she hasn’t admitted to it I think it’s obvious that she faked an ongoing pregnancy while knowing she wasn’t pregnant (ie: showing up to court in November with a bump). now whether all of that stuff is related enough to get her trouble in court? I don’t know. I’m not involved in law enough. But I think that’s at least the basis of everyone being so angry.


OK, let’s unpack this comment, because it’s something I have seen a LOT of people speculating about. The theory goes like this:

1.) Laura had like 5-6 positive pregnancy tests before she filed the paternity case against Clayton (actually I think it was 4 positive tests BEFORE the case was filed, and then many positive tests after)…..so OK, that’s actually pretty strong proof she was pregnant. Since we can’t prove she faked any of these tests, we can probably give her the benefit of the doubt and assume that she WAS pregnant….at least at first (and keep in mind – the paternity case was filed on August 1, 2023).

2.) Even if Laura WAS pregnant on August 1, she claims she later had a miscarriage, maybe even as late as 22+ weeks into the pregnancy, but maybe sooner. At that late stage, if she miscarried a child (or twins) that were between 4-5 months along, there MUST have been an obvious dead baby/babies. You can’t have a dead 5 month old fetus fall out without noticing it. That would make NO sense (DSG note – I agree 100%).

3.) Laura has failed to offer any proof of these dead 4/5 month old fetuses, and she has never explained where the dead babies went, therefore she MUST be lying. GOTCHA!

OK, for all you keyboard warriors out there who read some shit on Reddit, watched a few videos on YouTube, and NOW you think you know EVERYTHING about pregnancy, let me break some hard truth for you — you’re wrong. You don’t know everything (and neither do I, by the way).

That is why you HIRE EXPERTS. Because average people may think they know it all, but the truth is, you just don’t. No, seriously — STOP. You don’t. D__ N___? I’m talking to you here….

And in case you didn’t catch this news — Clayton HAS hired two OB/GYN experts. OOH WOW! TWO EXPERTS! HE MUST BE DOUBLE WINNING! SO MUCH WINNING FOR BIG STRONG CLAYTON!

But Clayton has not shared anything about what his experts are going to say. Having litigated TONS of cases with experts, I can tell you — that’s not normal. The rules require this disclosure, so I assume Clayton will be sharing that info soon.

But here is more news — Laura has also hired an OB/GYN expert. Just one. Sorry, not doing the twin expert thing. That’s a noob move.

Our expert is still reviewing info and asking questions, and he hasn’t produced his expert report yet. Obviously that will be disclosed to Clayton’s team as soon as we have it, probably next week (I don’t like to rush these things).

So while I can’t tell you exactly what Laura’s expert has concluded, I can share with you some information — it is ABSOLUTELY possible that Laura could have been pregnant with twins, had an early miscarriage of one, continued to gain weight, and then ended the pregnancy with a “SAB” (the medical term for a miscarriage), ALL WITHOUT EVER PASSING A STILLBORN FETUS.

But don’t take Dr. Gingras’ word on this. This is a REAL medical thing that happens. It even has a pretty intriguing name: “Vanishing Twin Syndrome“:

Vanishing twin syndrome, as the name depicts, is a condition in which one of a set of twins or multiple embryos dies in utero, disappear, or gets resorbed partially or entirely, with an outcome of a spontaneous reduction of a multi-fetus pregnancy to a singleton pregnancy, portraying the image of a vanishing twin. In simple words, the number of embryos conceived, as observed via ultrasonographic examination in early pregnancy, differs from the number of fetuses delivered. This phenomenon occurs in multi-fetus pregnancies, commonly during the first trimester.

Twin loss can happen in the form of miscarriage, of which the mother is aware or in the form of vaginal bleeding or spotting in the first trimester without any knowledge of the mother, as vaginal bleeding is instead a frequent obstetric complication during the first trimester of pregnancy so that the twin loss may go unnoticed. This phenomenon can range from the disappearance of an early empty gestational sac to a sac that had developed a fetal pole to a fetus with documented heart activity.


Without getting too graphic (and to be honest, this is something I hadn’t even considered), it is medically possible for a woman to become pregnant with twins, have two babies develop inside her womb, and then something goes wrong and one baby stops developing and dies, but the fetus is not discharged from the woman’s body; the fetus/uterus is simply “reabsorbed” into the body.

Be honest — did you know such a thing was possible? Until a few days ago, I had no clue this was possible…and to be honest with you, I kind of understood why people like Clayton’s lawyer were jumping up and down saying: “WHERE’S THE BABY!?! WHERE’S THE BABY!?!” In the absence of any other medical explanation (and for people who are NOT doctors), this made a lot of sense.

I’ve even seen suggestions that Laura MUST be lying about miscarrying so late in her term because if that happened, she would have been legally required to file a death certificate for the baby/babies. Again, sounds like a cool theory….but is it solid?

No, it’s not.

Everything changes when you understand it is entirely possible Laura was pregnant with twins, had a partial early SAB (miscarriage of one baby), remained pregnant with the other, and then had a second SAB followed by reabsorption (rather than stillbirth). By legal definition, Laura would NOT be required to file a death certificate in that case because no child was ever stillborn after 20 weeks. See A.R.S. 36-301(14) (defining “fetal death” to mean “the cessation of life before the complete expulsion or extraction of an unborn child from the child’s mother….”) A dead fetus that is reabsorbed into the mom’s body doesn’t count as a “fetal death” because the unborn child never left the mom’s body (yes, this is all seriously kind of creepy, but just stay with me).

In this case (and yes, you will still need to wait for trial to get the full/final story), it is medically possible that Laura experienced Vanishing Twin Syndrome, or something similar. That would explain literally every detail of what happened to her.

It would explain the positive pregnancy tests at the start. It would explain the partial early SAB, followed by more positive tests, concluding with very low HCG tests which confirm the non-viability of the second fetus, followed by complete reabsorption rather than stillbirth. This explains her weight gain. Explains the NOT-fake “moon bump”. Explains the NUMEROUS positive pregnancy tests, followed by positive (but unrealistically low) HCG results. Explains the lack of a fetal death certificate.


But hey — screw the facts. What fun is the truth when a lie sells SO much better? Breadsticks aren’t free, and people want more drama, more scandals, more LIES, rather than nasty depressing stories about dead babies reabsorbing into the mom…EEEEWWW. So we keep selling lies. It’s better that way.

So I agree — screw the truth. Just keep blogging about what a liar Laura is, what a saint Clayton is, and what an immoral scumbag attorney I am for standing by Laura’s side. Keep doing that folks. No chance Laura will sue any of you into homeless oblivion when it’s all done, because we know you all really tried darn hard to be honest and fair. Just not sure a jury will see it that way.

Enough unpaid commentary for now. Just remember what our friend Mark Twain said:


This Post Has 61 Comments

  1. Grant Chester

    You have found one convenient way to explain everything, but everything can be explained away with multiple reasonings. This is why you would bring in two experts. You mention hiring one expert, but please share the number of experts that you consulted. You complain about people calling your client a liar, but you know she lied about at least one thing (ultrasound) so yes calling her a liar is in fact a correct statement. You didn’t have this cure all answer until this a few days ago, but last week were saying you knew the truth and it’d change everything. Shockingly seems like you went shopping for answers.

  2. Jfc

    Your expert is going to rise to fame explaining this one. I need to go search through some medical journals to learn more about fetal resorption at 4+ months after passing 2 sacs months prior. Totally explains little to no fetal DNA and then hcg of 104 in October. I can see why her belly looked like it was going to pop in November. Her body was bloated from absorbing a fetus! This answers everything. I’m never listening to the internet again!

  3. Lynne

    So which doctor told her she was having twins to begin with? I suppose those records will be submitted by the deadline tomorrow?

    1. David Gingras

      The twin thing came from Planned Parenthood ultrasound. Yes Clayton disputes this is real, but Laura has testified under oath it’s real. Verification of that remains pending, but just because Clayton says something isn’t true does not mean he is right. This guy’s credibility is in question, as is Laura’s, which is why we have the courts to sort through all the BS…

      1. Grant Chester

        The ultrasound she admitted to doctoring?

        1. David Gingras

          She says the ultrasound was legit. She only edited the name at the top to hide where she had this done. Smart? NO. Fraud? NO.

          1. Grant Chester

            How would editing only part not void an entire document legally?

          2. Ivy

            If there is an ultrasound from planned parenthood, why has this been SO hard to produce over the last 10 months? Why are you still waiting on this? Like this is so goofy. Produce one legitimate piece of evidence and we’ll all shut up and go home. If Laura is so anguished that she’s being unfairly persecuted you would think she’d be eager to do this. If she’s concerned about privacy this would be wayyyy less invasive than all the other nonsense she’s already volunteered (fake pics and videos, thousands of words worth of medium articles and reddit fights, all her texts in a zillion court filings)

            My kids are school-aged and I could still find a hard or digital copy of their ultrasounds in about 1 minute. Geez I still have one on my fridge even though that fetus can now read and write.

            I mean this respectfully, does this not sound suspicious to you? Are you not concerned she may be evading the truth or being dishonest with you?

          3. David Gingras

            You’re taking Clayton’s bait. From what I can tell, Clayton is using proxies (Dave Neal) to spread false information about what happened, and no one seems to be questioning that narrative.

            The ultrasound from PP HAS been produced. It was NEVER hidden. The problem is, as everyone knows, Laura edited the top of the thing to change the name from Planned Parenthood to something else. That was seriously dumb, but it doesn’t PROVE she’s lying….it just raises questions that need to be checked.

            And since you asked nicely, I will answer nicely back — does this sound suspicious? ABSOLUTELY YES. Only an idiot would say it’s not suspicious. But here is what you don’t seem to understand — I’ve been in this business for 20+ years, and this sort of thing is NOT uncommon. I have worked on many cases where people fudged a document, backdated something, changed a signature slightly….sometimes for innocent reasons and sometimes for malicious reasons. This one single thing is part of a larger story, and if you want to think the edited PP ultrasound is a deal-breaker, you can think that. But how do you explain the 6+ positive pregnancy tests? How do you explain the large bump in her tummy? How do you explain her gaining SO much weight (she gained somewhere between 20-40 pounds during the time she claimed to be pregnant). How do you explain multiple medical providers performing their own tests on her and all saying the same thing: “YES, you are pregnant.”

            There are lots of pieces in this puzzle. It’s a mistake to focus on just one.

      2. Beth

        Ya, but Laura also testified under oath that she altered that same ultrasound in Adobe Acrobat. I think sharing some portions of the depo are in order, if your client is amenable to it. The opinions of this case were formed from reading the available transcripts and exhibits. We don’t want to read long personal stories or theories about why may have happened. Give evidence and we will read it. I don’t think it’s likely, but it’s the only hope to turn at least some of the public opinion in your favor.

      3. Trippy

        You in emails to woodnick said you had the photo that Laura sent to her sister and the texts between her and her sister and the date was 23rd July and Laura in her depo said she sent photo to her sister and telehealth person. So did they vanish without her knowing or did Laura lie in her depo and did you lie in your emails to Greg when you said you had the photos. As for the 2 experts they are waiting on Laura’s disclosure of medical records to give their opinion on, also planned parenthood don’t give anonymous ultrasounds so at least they will have a medical record for Laura (cough cough)

        1. David Gingras

          Holy crap you drank the Kool-Aid.

          Look — Woodnick HAS the photos. He’s had them for some time now.

          To my knowledge, Woodnick’s experts are not waiting for anything further (if they are, Woodnick has said nothing to me about this).

          My expert has reviewed 100s of pages of Laura’s records. His report has NOT been completed, so I’m not in a position to put words in his mouth, but I am pretty confident his testimony will totally exonerate Laura. You can doubt that all you want, but wait until all the facts are out there.

          1. Grant Chester

            Your experts testimony means nothing if you find the one of ten doctors who has the differing opinion.

  4. Jane Doe

    Why is it abnormal that Clayton’s team haven’t disclosed their expert testimony but not abnormal that you haven’t disclosed your expert testimony?

    1. Beth

      I’d like an answer to this too.

    2. Becky

      I believe the dependent is required to submit that info first to allow petitioner time to review and choose appropriate experts for themselves? I’ve always thought that was a weird rule

      1. Becky


      2. Janeth Doeth

        Please don’t pull a muscle with how much stretching you’re doing.

        Either you’ve wasted all your time as her attorney tweeting and blogging, or you know this is all is ridiculous to argue and you’re too stubborn to admit you picked a client who doesn’t deserve to win this case.

    3. David Gingras

      In this posture, we’re basically offering rebuttal testimony. 100% normal for the party taking a position to disclose their experts first, and the opposing party will then disclose their rebuttal expert later. Despite this, we’re still preparing to give the court our expert’s info ASAP, regardless of what Clayton does. Yes, I agree it’s weird. Not my fault.

  5. JDC

    Still doesn’t explain how TF she got pregnant without having sex. Nor will it ever. Jane’s own words to Clayton: “I haven’t had sex in more than a year.”

    1. LFG


  6. Ivy

    DG, my dude, in the words of Taylor Swift, you need to just stop. Your efforts to understand pregnancy are like bless-your-heart adorable right now. I have been through several of them, and have been there alongside about a million more of my friends and relatives, and we’ve seen it all. Yes, vanishing twins are a known thing. But thanks for mansplaining. A body can ABSOLUTELY absorb a first trimester embryo! A body would never, and I mean NEVER, “absorb” a fetus the size of what was in her (fake) belly from that court appearance. That would be a living baby or a miscarriage/stillbirth that would require significant medical attention. You seem very giddy to have finally found the perfect explanation so I’m sorry to break that news to you : (

    1. David Gingras

      Can’t we all just agree to chill out and listen to Dead Poets (or whatever it’s called) when she releases this tonight?

      Sorry – Tortured Poets…


    Pissing hot for HCG bc she snarfs horse pills or whatever other medication she takes that affects her to produce a low amount of HCG DOES NOT MEAN SHE WAS EVER PREGNANT. May the DA address this in criminal court like Trevor’s fraudulent accuser. No one believes she was pregnant, including her, hence the moon bump and fake ultra sounds. It’s part of her scam she has done to MANY men. Petitioner is not special. No need to come into this case and mansplain pregnancy. You’re only affecting your legal reputation. This case will blow over but your reputation in the field will remain. Same thing will happen for you, she’ll run out of money and I think there’s not much left in the home equity she allegedly is using to finance these “how to not get a boyfriend” court cases.

  8. Mel

    There is 4 guys, 1 commin denominator.-YOUR CLIENT. Your asking all of us to believe that Laura had similar situations with not 1, Not 2, not 3, BUT 4 guys? Your client is a liar, keep your word… quit.

    1. David Gingras

      Do you know the full story of those other 4 guys? I do, at least from Laura’s side (and looking at what the records show).

      Maybe there is more to the story than what I’ve seen, but based on what I’ve seen, the narrative you’ve been sold is a 100% lie. But don’t take my word for it – let’s wait and see what happens in court.

      1. Grant Chester

        Is it not odd how similar the four stories are?

        1. David Gingras

          Not even slightly. If you think they are odd, you need to hear Laura’s side of the story. That’s going to be covered at trial.

          1. Grant Chester

            Are they similar or not?

  9. Anonymous

    Thank you for replying to my original comment. I actually am familiar with vanishing twin syndrome though never thought about it in this scenario. Definitely interested to see what/how the evidence points in this direction (if that’s the case). Upon first read I was really buying in…. And I’m not discounting it (as I mentioned, unfair to say before knowing the evidence) but I’ll admit what makes me have questions is the storyline of these other 3 or 4 guys… I gotta say, even Knowing that the public probably doesn’t have the whole story, it’s just so odd for someone to have 4 allegations that are so similar. That’s a big red flag. My law question would be… If these guys happened to all be witnesses and testify under oath that LO faked pregnancies with them, ECT….. does that info get taken as fact over the actual rulings since they’re under oath?

    And to the public I would just say, be sensitive with your words and careful with allegations. I totally understand the anger especially in the situation of there being potentially multiple victims. As a mental health worker, there are a lot of signs pointing to a history of some abuse…. Bring a victim does NOT give you a right to make others victims but that also doesn’t take away your victim story. We don’t know who could have abused her in the past or how. It COULD have been one of her victims. It’s possible for her to have wronged the person who wronged her so just be sensitive and focus on the person who you are currently defending

    1. David Gingras

      Just so you know, according to Laura, there are NO other victims. According to her, that is a completely fabricated lie that Clayton is using to try and cover himself. I am not in a position to say who is right or wrong on the victim thing, but per Laura’s side, it’s 100% BS.

  10. Eleanor

    So what you’re saying is since it’s POSSIBLE to have vanishing twin syndrome in the 1st trimester, it MUST therefore be possible to have DOUBLE vanishing twin syndrome occurring the 2nd trimester? It’s nice you read an article and all but stick to being a lawyer, human biology is not your strong suit.

    1. David Gingras

      That’s why I’m going to let the expert offer his opinion about what happened. I am certainly NOT an expert in female pregnancy. I was just offering an example that *MIGHT* help shed some light on what occurred here.

  11. Paul

    David if Laura admitted to you or you discovered that she lied, would you be duty bound to report that to the court. And if not, would it preclude you from being a zealous advocate on behalf of your client. Regardless of the outcome, I hope Laura gets all the support, help and love she needs going forward. Thank you for your updates

    1. David Gingras

      This is a fair question and I think it is important for people to understand a couple of things.

      First, as a lawyer, it DOES sometimes happen where a client will come to you and say: “Look, I lied about something that is really an important part of this case.” When this happens, are you required to immediately withdraw from the case?



      If you really want to learn about this, you can go read the Rules of Professional Conduct, and look specifically at ER 3.3(a)(3). If a client tells you they lied, you are NOT required to fire them immediately. There are lots of options. Step #1 is to try and convince the client to come forward and tell the truth. In many cases, even when someone has lied under oath, the rules provide a “safe harbor” that allows the liar to come forward, admit they lied, and then confess the truth. In many instances, even when a person has lied under oath, they CANNOT be prosecuted for perjury as long as they confess before the lie has impacted the case.

      Don’t take my word for it — this comes straight from the federal perjury statue, 18 USC 1623:
      (d)Where, in the same continuous court or grand jury proceeding in which a declaration is made, the person making the declaration

        admits such declaration to be false, such admission shall bar prosecution under this section if,

      at the time the admission is made, the declaration has not substantially affected the proceeding, or it has not become manifest that such falsity has been or will be exposed.

      My point is simply this — if a client tells you they have lied, you do not have to withdraw. You can still try to help them fix the issue. You can pressure them to admit the lie, and then move on. In many cases this can be done with zero risk of prosecution (heck, the client probably can’t even be sanctioned). The only thing you CANNOT do, and something I would never do, is you cannot allow your client to make a false statement in court, if you KNOW they are lying. But Laura has sworn to me, over and over and over again, that she is not lying. She has testified about this under oath in her deposition. She has signed affidavits directly refuting Clayton’s claims against her. And here is the most important thing – EVERY SINGLE TIME I have asked Laura to back up her story or to point me to a document where I can verify what she’s said, the documents support what she is claiming (yes, the Planned Parenthood thing is an issue, but she has an explanation for this).

      So no, at this point I have not seen anything that would warrant my withdrawal, and I have zero intention of withdrawing unless and until I find out she’s been untruthful (and the ultrasound does not count, because Laura has ADMITTED to editing it in a non-material way).

      1. Grant Chester

        If she admits a lie, you no longer consider it a lie? Weeks ago you said, if she lied I’d drop her. Legally you don’t have to, but you said those words.

  12. LFG

    Look, you better bring it as far evidence bc what she has shown so far is circumstantial at best, and she already admitted to altering documents. If I were her, I’d be worried about these federal fraud charges on Trevor Bauer’s accuser. Maybe they will come for her next. Defrauding people to try and get them into a relationship with you is as bad as defrauding for money (not to mention desperate and sad.) They never had sex, she was never pregnant, she never miscarried. She is a sociopath. We all know it. I hope she one day finds value in herself, and not just in a relationship.

    1. David Gingras

      I have ZERO concerns about Laura being arrested like that other woman. Totally different situations; not even close to comparable (but I get why Clayton wants to think they are).

      And by the way, YES — I’ve personally defended people accused of extortion. Just one example: https://dockets.justia.com/docket/california/cacdce/2:2010cv01360/465955

      So far, my track record when defending extortion claims has been 100% success. Not because I’m good. It’s just because extortion is a super-specific thing that is really, really narrow. Based on what I’ve seen in this case, there is zero chance Laura committed extortion.

  13. Trippy

    So fetal reapsortion can be observed as earlier as 7week and as late as 12th week (according to NHS online) The ultrasound she doctored was dated early September shows 2 healthly babies usually as you tend to see some indication 1 baby is smaller than other etc but not impossible Laura is roughly about 10weeks at that time. How do you explain in November Laura said in court 100% 24weeks pregnant (body can’t absorb a 24week baby at that stage it’s no longer a featus its a fully formed baby that can survive outside the womb after 23weeks) and Laura said she had SEEN Dr Higley the previous friday(not she had an appointment but had covid and couldn’t go) so she would of known in that November court hearing she had lost at least 1 baby.

    1. David Gingras

      Your timeline is wrong (and to be fair, I initially had the same misunderstanding as well). The ultrasound was from Planned Parenthood in California. Laura has been 100% clear about that, but it was NOT done in September (that’s what I originally thought as well). Laura recently found a record that showed an appointment at PP in her name on July 2, 2023, and she initially said that was the date she believed the ultrasound happened, but there are also some records to suggest it might have been the weekend before (so June 24-25th). We are still trying to nail down the exact date, and YES — I am NOT happy about the fact this isn’t covered with a clear, confirmed written record. Honestly, Laura’s case would be MUCH easier if we had that, but the fact is we just don’t (at least not yet). Laura will have to explain this at trial, and maybe you believe her and maybe you don’t. Just try to remember – people are not perfect. I know for a fact that I had a dermatologist appointment last year (I previously had a very serious type of skin cancer), but if you asked me to tell you the exact date, my response would be: “no clue”. YES, I could go find a record that would give me the exact date, but in Laura’s situation, she just doesn’t have that yet. This might mean she is lying, but it might not. It’s just totally unfair to jump to that conclusion just because some dude who was on TV 4 years ago tells you she’s lying.

      1. ALC

        She literally was emailing Clayton in June saying she had an ultrasound done but… can’t produce the ultrasound? can’t produce the file with the original ultrasound before she deliberately doctored it?? Sus. I bet she had another “telehealth” appt where she told them she was pregnant (which does not make someone pregnant, contrary to what Laura thinks).

      2. Grant Chester

        When she first showed you the sonogram, what date did she tell you? Cause obviously it’d be your first question.

      3. Ivy

        A) If she was really a mother of loss she would remember every detail about that ultrasound and cherish it. B) Setting that aside, she wouldn’t need to have perfect recall of the date, the PROVIDER would have it. C) Now setting THAT aside, since she admitted to the photoshopping part, she would have easy access to the original she started with. Doesn’t it set off MAJOR alarms for you that she readily provided the fake pic but is dragging her feet/stalling for months and having all these “issues” producing something real? That should take like 5 seconds to find? Like for real dude you are betting your professional reputation on trusting her word. RUN ????

      4. Beth

        David, This may be a dumb question, but are you saying that neither you nor Laura keep doctor appointments in your cell phone calendar or health portal or in your personal emails? Are they kept in a paper appointment book that has been since thrown away? How do you know when your appointments are? (Glad to know Laura is receiving appropriate healthcare now, thanks for writing back about that).

        1. David Gingras

          I typically get doctor’s appointments confirmed in emails, but I can’t say that’s always the case.

          I had skin cancer about 5 years ago (melanoma — the worst kind) and this involved a LARGE number of doctors office visits, two surgeries, and several weeks of treatment at MD Anderson Cancer Center. I’m sure I could probably go back and reconstruct the exact dates of everything, but I’m also sure I probably missed a few appointments or forgot one or more details about everything that happened. My imperfect memory doesn’t mean I lied about having cancer. I’ve got a 10″ scar down my back that confirms the story.

  14. AC

    What’s insulting is that you’re misstating what “Vanishing Twin” means.

    Per your link: “a spontaneous ****reduction***** of a multi-fetus pregnancy to a ****singleton**** pregnancy, portraying the image of a vanishing twin. In simple words, the number of embryos conceived, as observed via ultrasonographic examination in early pregnancy, differs from the number of ****fetuses delivered.****

    The syndrome doesn’t result in both fetuses being absorbed. It doesn’t state that it results in the loss of all fetuses.

  15. Moon bump

    Only a doctor can confirm vanishing twins… are you and Laura (6x pregnant with fake twins) Owens able to produce those records by the deadline?

    1. David Gingras

      The court has set a disclosure cutoff of 30 days before trial. And as I’ve explained, we have an expert (a doctor) who is currently working on his report. As soon as that’s done, we will disclose it.

      And FYI – Gregg Woodnick has disclosed the names of his experts, but he has not disclosed a single detail about what they may say.

      1. Confused Aussie

        But how can their experts come to any conclusions without the discovery evidence being handed over?

        1. David Gingras

          It has been handed over. I know you don’t want to hear this, but there is A LOT of false information being spread about this case.

          Don’t worry. We’ll get the facts out there soon enough.

          1. Aussie

            If it has been handed over, why has the judge just issued an order to compel it to be handed over?

  16. Trippy

    Okay I appreciate the response but let me clarify I’m not a bachelor fan (never watched a single episode not my cup of tea) or a Clayton fan. I came across this case coz I watch Emily D Baker (she was LA district attorney) on YouTube and I’m a fan of looking at civil/criminal case through court documents I find it interesting and you learn things. I came across Laura case by YouTube algorithm of this channel does similar things to Emily. Im willing to concede that I’m completely wrong on ultrasound timeline but there are excerpts of Laura’s depo in a court fillings that exhibit 9 is her ultrasound from PP California and she changed the location to SMIL and the she goes on to state that she also added her name coz she went PP California anonymously.

    1. Beth

      Trippy, thanks for sharing how you got here! Yes, a lot of us came from the lawtube side of things. I happen to also have watched some of Clayton’s season, but had no interest in him as a person. We are really hoping Emily to cover this, if you ever feel like send her a message ????

  17. Confused Aussie

    So if the first twin ‘vanished’ and the second one was reabsorbed as a result of an invisible miscarriage, how did she find out she was no longer pregnant? If it wasn’t from passing the ‘foetal sacs’, was it as a result of a medical diagnostic assessment of some type? If so, where are those records?

  18. Prove it

    Can you show us 1 time where an MD or DO has physically examined her, described a pregnant uterus, and given a diagnosis of Intrauterine Pregnancy (IUP) of X number of weeks? Please include the date of the examination and the physician’s signature.

  19. Lisa

    Most reasonable people following this case would be satisfied with even one verifiable sonogram from really any of the multiple pregnancy sagas Laura’s had over the years. The doctored stolen sonograms she’s shared with media and sent to the men really makes it hard to believe the rest of her tales (coupled with the under oath lies; correspondence lies to the men and families and media outlets via email and text about receiving OB care and ultrasound evidence turning out to be untrue) Not providing that proof of her twin pregnancy claims while presenting what i would consider wild theories on vanishing twins and using weight as a confirmation and saying that seals your case is confusing! Just as a curious observer Laura seems adeptly skilled at changing her story and finding any and all loopholes to fit the narrative she needs in the moment. To me the pain and stress she put the men through if based solely on HPTs (which are easy to fake) and not taking the due diligence to confirm her pregnancy with OB care prior to filing lawsuits, destroying career opportunities, and seeking media attention would be cruel and worthy of some sort of justice for the men.

    What fascinates me is Laura can present as so normal and legitimate but the more you dig in the more lies you uncover. She doesn’t initially come off as crazy which is why I believe she’s able to take so many of these cases so far and avoid consequences. She’s super smart and is able to find the loopholes to justify punishing these men for not wanting to date her and having just enough to legally back her up while avoiding the proof she always claimed she had by pulling the female victim card. If there really is a sonogram from PP i will eat my words here; but just from history it appears laura will find a narrative as to why the sonogram she edited and used in court isn’t available to be traced back to its source and PP won’t be able to find her records due to some excuse about using alias or name changes and not remembering what it was or something like that. Genuinely just so curious to see what angle comes out there and if you are able to produce that verifiable ultrasound that would totally seal the case and laura should get any and all justice from that you see fit!

    No hate I’m just watching this all unfold but hard for me as a reasonable observer to understand how Laura has any legitimacy till you provide even just one sonogram from the last decade. But the vitriol and accusations you’re throwing at Clayton’s “supporters” and threats of lawsuits for reasonably doubting Laura and trying to understand what happened without presenting verifiable evidence of twin pregnancy seems a bit unhinged! It appears that she only gained a few pounds from the start of pregnancy was photographed shortly before trial with no belly and suddenly a massive belly and a reasonable person can’t say hey that seems like it could be a fake belly? Is that really defamation? I’m not in the legal space so might be just part of the strategy feels a lot like gaslighting a reasonable question.

    It’s all highly entertaining though and I can’t say I’m not enjoying following the insanity that’s entered the case albeit to Laura and Clayton’s expense! There will always be internet crazies that just throw insults around; but I would say most people following this case are fairly reasonable and just want verified evidence of twin pregnancies outside of the theories you’re throwing around claiming it seals the case!


    Genuine question here, not trying to be rude. LO claims that she altered the PP ultrasound to include her name and the SMIL at the top. But, even if she claims that she only altered that part of it and not the actual image of the fetuses, isn’t it still reasonable to ask that she submit the ORIGINAL ultrasound directly from PP to the court? It seems unethical to allow something into evidence that has been knowingly tampered with. Because she admitted to doctoring it in any way, shouldn’t it be required that she give them the original sonogram? She has already demonstrated that she is capable of doctoring images, so what gives the court reason to believe she didn’t doctor any other part of it? I don’t think it sounds right to submit into evidence anything that didn’t come directly from its source now that we know she had made the decision to alter it. Not trying to be rude, just genuinely curious about the logistics behind this.

    1. David Gingras

      Your question isn’t rude at all. It’s totally fair.

      I get where you are coming from, but let me address this specifically: “It seems unethical to allow something into evidence that has been knowingly tampered with.”

      I’m sure you’re probably not a lawyer (which is fine; many people claim I shouldn’t be one). But here is the thing — there is absolutely nothing wrong with submitting “altered” evidence in court…..PROVIDED you don’t claim that it’s the original. In other words, Laura has always (at least on my watch) admitted that she changed the name on the sonogram to hide where it was done. She has NEVER (since I’ve been involved) claimed that the version we have is the original. She claims she no longer has the original, and unfortunately, she claims it’s impossible to get the original because, according to her, she went to Planned Parenthood “anonymously” and paid cash, therefore they cannot locate any records with her name on them.

      If you are skeptical about this story, that’s 100% OK. I am skeptical as well, but that’s not the standard for when a lawyer must withdraw from helping a client. I can continue to help Laura as long as I do not KNOW she is being untruthful. I know that may sound odd if you’re not a lawyer, but think about it this way — does Clayton’s lawyer have to withdraw just because Laura claims Clayton is lying about having sex with her? Of course not. The truth may be that Clayton IS lying and Laura IS telling the truth about what happened that night, but Clayton’s lawyer doesn’t know what happened (neither do I). So, we are both allowed to trust our client’s version of the story….unless and until something happens to prove that one side isn’t being truthful.

      As for the sonogram, Laura has admitted it’s not the original. She has admitted to messing with the top of it. Based on that, it’s entirely fair to assume the sonogram isn’t genuine, but that doesn’t mean the rest of her story is all lies.

      Anyway, thanks for your interest in the case, and just rest assured that I’m following the rules of ethics every step of the way here. My license to practice law is more valuable to me than any one client, so I have no incentive to put my license at risk by bending any of the ethical rules.

      1. What'sItMatterAnyway

        CYA all the way! ????

  21. Lonni

    Don’t worry concerned observer. The PP that she “visited” does not offer sonograms. There are no originals to gather from PP as it is not a service they provide. David is very busy today getting a disappearing sonogram expert. He’ll likely be quite busy going forward. #justiceforlaura ???

Comments are closed.