Greitens Attorney Outlines All The Problems With St. Louis Circuit Atty Gardner's Case
If there is one thing to take away from the the felony criminal Invasion of Privacy case brought against Missouri Governor Eric Greitens by St. Louis Circuit Attorney Kim Gardner, it's that there's little to no case at all.
The media has chased the story and reported allegations and what Greitens' attorneys say are complete falsehoods for months, sharing them on social media as fact since the story broke the night of Governor Greitens' State of the State Address in January. Greitens has called the allegations and the prosecution "political", and says they are meant to destroy him, and after reviewing everything that has happened with this case since January, it's tough not to agree with him.
It has been an unusual prosecution from day one, at least if you view it through an unbiased, critical eye. There is no evidence beyond a reasonable doubt to provide the court that would convict Greitens. There's also no victim who has been presented by any law enforcement agency, only a recording made without her knowledge by a now ex-husband who was confronting her about the extra-marital affair she had with Greitens before he ran for elected office.
In that recording, she is heard making the allegation that Greitens told her he took a photo of her in a compromising position and would use that against her if she should ever talk about it, but no photo has ever been seen. During a grand jury called by Gardner after the story of the affair broke, along with that recording, the woman also testified that she never saw a camera or a cell phone that could take photos.
Also interesting, the indictment document filed when Greitens' indictment came down in February is time-stamped 12/22/17. That date is nearly three weeks before that story was broadcast on a St. Louis television station.
There are also questionable moves by Gardner not seen by a prosecuting attorney in any case, much less a case with as much importance as this one. Instead of using her office's own team of investigators, or the St. Louis Police Department, or the FBI, she hired an out of state private investigation company, paying it a $10,000 retainer, and paying its investigators $250 per hour.
Gardner also enlisted the paid help of a private defense attorney at a cost of $12,000 per month, a Harvard Law professor who once represented the family of Michael Brown. This move caused Greitens' defense team to file a motion to dismiss, calling the move a criminal act. In fact, the Missouri Supreme Court ruled more than 40 years ago that it is illegal to hire private attorneys for prosecutions.
At a recent hearing, the defense provided sworn testimony from a private investigator hired by Gardner. In a transcript of that hearing, the defense refers to that testimony, saying the single investigator is essentially Gardner's entire investigative team.
The investigator testified under oath that he had not seen the photo in question, found no evidence a photo had ever been transferred or shared, and when asked about a search for more evidence, he testified that he was not aware of anyone even searching for any evidence of any kind related to what Greitens is charged with.
Greitens' defense team has requested that his trial be moved up to early April, it has also filed a motion to dismiss the case altogether. Judge Rex Burlison denied the request to move up the trial, keeping the start date for May 14. Gardner and her team originally requested that the trial not be started until early November, the day after the general election.
The next hearing on the case will be Monday morning, March 26. We will wait and see what Judge Burlison decides and have more on that Monday night on The Allman Report.