JEFFERSON CITY, MO – Ahead of a report detailing an investigation into governor Eric Greitens’ conduct, Greitens issued a statement around 4:14 p.m., in which he denounced a charge of invasion of privacy made against him.
In his statement, Greitens admitted he made a personal mistake years ago when he engaged in a consensual relationship with a woman who was not his wife. He called it a private mistake that was not made while governing, and denounced the charges against him as lies. It is alleged, he took a partially nude photo of the woman without her consent.
Statements Wednesday from Democrat leadership in the Missouri legislature have called for his resignation. The report by the investigative panel was released after 5 p.m. Wednesday.
Greitens said the report from the investigation would include lies. He said he would eventually be proven innocent. He is accused of taking and transmitting a picture of a former mistress without her knowledge or consent. The report, issued in the 5 p.m. hour today, goes into explicit detail regarding the alleged affair between Greitens and his hairdresser over three years ago. A little over one page of the 24-page document actually deals with the issue of whether a photo had been taken. The woman’s testimony indicates she thought the picture was taken while she was blindfolded during an incident with Greitens:
29. After Greitens pulled down her pants, Witness 1 testified, “[T]hen I hear him kind
of, like, step back – take a step back and I hear – I can hear like a, like a cell phone – like a
picture, and I can see a flash through the blindfold.”32
30. Witness 1 testified that she felt like her “privacy was invaded.”33
31. Witness 1 testified that she never saw an actual picture.34 Nor did she recall “the
first time she saw his phone.”35
32. On April 9, 2018, the Committee was made aware of a motion filed in the
criminal case by Greitens’ counsel that asserted Witness 1 testified as follows:
Q: Did you ever see him in possession of a camera or phone?
A: Not to my knowledge. I didn’t see him with it.
Q: 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?
Q: 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?
A: Yes, I cannot say.
The motion notes that, when asked by the Assistant Circuit Attorney, “did you see what you
believed to be a phone?” Witness 1 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.”36
33. When asked whether she had reason to believe a photograph of her was
transmitted in a way that allowed access via a computer, Witness 1 stated she knew “he had an
iPhone … And if he had iCloud, yes.”37
34. The committee does not possess any physical or electronic evidence of a photograph or its transmission.38
35. Witness 1 testified that Greitens then said, “You’re not going to mention my
name. Don’t even mention my name to anybody at all, because if you do, I’m going to take these
pictures, and I’m going to put them everywhere I can. They are going to be everywhere, and then
everyone will know what a little whore you are.”39
(Warning: full report contains graphic language and descriptions)