Breaking: Greitens Accuser Admits Photo Session May Have Been A “Dream”
One of the most contentious issues in the State of Missouri’s case against Gov. Eric Greitens has been the whereabouts of an incriminating photo that he is alleged to have taken and disseminated.
A deposition of the woman (K.S.) in question, the woman who accused Greitens of taking a nude photo of her, reveals one new shocking bit of evidence. The woman may have dreamed up the incident at the heart of the criminal case.
The St. Louis Circuit Attorney has contrived a case against Gov. Greitens that Lewis Carroll would have been hard pressed to imagine.
The defense team’s April 8 motion to compel immediate production of all exculpatory evidence reports the following exchange.
When the defense counsel asked K.S., “Did you ever see [Greitens] 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?”
K.S. replied, “Correct.”
The counsel then asked, “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?”
K.S. answered, “Yes. I cannot say.”
Trying to salvage the state’s case, the Assistant Circuit Attorney later asked K.S., “Did you see what you believed to be a phone?”
Here comes the shocker. K.S. answered, “… 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.”
K.S. remembered the photo incident “through a dream”? Memories recovered through dreams have led to some of the great injustices in recent jurisprudence. To her credit, K.S. struggled to give honest answers to the questions she was asked, but her honesty has undone the remaining threads of a quickly unraveling case.
As the defense counsel observed in the motion, the state was aware that recovered memories may have accounted for K.S.’s recollection, but state prosecutors failed to turn that obviously exculpatory evidence over to the defense. K.S. also failed to so share this revelation with the House committee investigating Greitens.
Defense counsel insists that there is additional exculpatory evidence the prosecution has yet to turn over to the defense and has asked the court to order Circuit Attorney Kim Gardner to produce it.