JEFFERSON CITY, Mo. (AP) — Attorneys defending Missouri Gov. Eric Greitens against an invasion-of-privacy charge are raising doubts about the testimony of a woman with whom he had an affair.
In a court filing dated Sunday, Greitens’ attorneys say the woman testified she never saw Greitens with a camera or phone on the day he is accused of taking a partially nude photo of her while she was blindfolded and bound.
The court filing says the woman also testified during her Friday deposition that she doesn’t know if her belief that he had a phone was the result of a dream.
The court filing says the woman also revealed that she had sent partially nude images of herself to Greitens in June 2015 — three months after the encounter for which Greitens is charged.
The St. Louis Circuit Attorney’s Office released the following statement:
The approach of the defense team has been consistent throughout this matter. They are working hard to try this case in the media by attacking the credibility of the victim and the investigation.
In this situation, the defense team has cherry picked bits and pieces of the victim’s nine-hour deposition to attack her credibility. There is nothing substantially new about the victim’s testimony in the deposition, including the fact that the video camera had malfunctioned. The prosecution has complied with all discovery rules and will continue to do so as required by law.
Week after week, the defense team continues to waste the court’s time with their frivolous motions. It’s clear with these motions, and the hiring of a public relations firm that sends out press releases and court filings to select media, that they are playing political games. This week’s games are an effort to deflect public attention from other matters facing the Governor.
In May, the jury will have the opportunity to hear the testimony first hand and determine for themselves what happened in the basement of Governor Greitens’ house.
Meanwhile, Greitens posted this response on his Facebook page:
That’s right, the information that was used to launch this witch hunt and indict on a felony involving an alleged photograph may have originated from a “dream.” Under oath, the woman also stated she has never seen a photograph, never saw a camera or phone, and has never seen evidence of transmission of a photograph