‘Remembering it through a dream’ – Greitens’ attorneys cast doubt on woman’s recollections
JEFFERSON CITY, Mo. 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.
When she was asked by defense counsel, “Did you ever see him in possession of a camera or phone?” she answered: “Not to my knowledge. I didn’t see him with it.” The
question was then asked: “And as you sit here now, you cannot state under oath that you ever saw him in possession of a camera – with a camera or a phone?” and she replied, “Correct.” And then, “And you can’t say you saw it on his person, you can’t say you saw him put it down in the kitchen, take it from the kitchen, or put it down anywhere in the basement. Those are all correct statements, are they not?” she answered, “Yes. I cannot say.”
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.
“… I haven’t talked about it because I don’t know if it’s because I’m remembering it through a dream or I – I’m not sure, but yes, I feel like I saw it after that happened, but I haven’t spoken about it because of that.” She later re-confirmed, however, that she could not testify under oath that she saw a phone.
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.
Governor Eric Greitens posted this message to his Facebook fans Monday morning: “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.”