click to enlarge DANNY WICENTOWSKI

Angered by what he believes is a smear campaign against his client, the attorney for the former mistress of Missouri Governor Eric Greitens says his client is not only certain that Greitens took a nude photo of her against her will — but confirms that she has testified just that three times under oath."Her testimony has been the same every time," says attorney Scott Simpson.Simpson's client, a St. Louis hairdresser, had an affair with Greitens before he was governor. In a phone interview with thethis morning, Simpson said that the woman was in Greitens' basement in March 2015 when Greitens blindfolded her and bound her hands. At that point, he says, "He then rips her shirt open, pulls her pants down to her ankles, takes a step back and takes her picture."Simpson says that Greitens then clearly threatened the woman. "He told her, 'If you ever mention this, I will spread this picture anywhere I can, I will put this all over the Internet."And then, Simpson says, "He called her a whore."The woman later told her estranged husband about the incident while he was secretly recording her. He later gave that recording to KMOV , and provided an on-camera interview as well.But Simpson's interview this morning is the first time the woman or her lawyer have confirmed to the media the details of what was alleged in the recording — or confirmed that she has testified to those details under oath.Simpson says he decided to speak out because Greitens' attorneys at Dowd Bennett filed a motion Sunday that was widely disseminated to the media yesterday, suggesting the woman wasn't sure whether she'd been photographed. "I don't know if I'm remembering it through a dream," she was quoted as saying.But Simpson says that sentence was not at all representative of what the woman said during a nine-hour deposition with Dowd Bennett Friday, nor does it represent what she has told the Circuit Attorney's Office or the House committee investigating Greitens for possible impeachment. In all three, he says, she has been absolutely clear about what happened.He says her response came when attorneys asked her specifically if she'd seen a phone or cameraGreitens applied the blindfold. Because she believed she had, but wasn't absolutely certain, she wasn't willing to testify as such under oath. He says the reference to possibly "remembering it through a dream" was almost a "throwaway line" — along the lines of, "I don't know, for all I know I dreamt it."But as far as the substance of what happened that day in the basement, and whether the photo was taken, Simpson insists she has zero doubts (and that Greitens later admitted it to her in conversation more than once ). He also criticizes Dowd Bennett for failing to provide him or his client with her deposition, noting that a deposition is not final until the person being questioned has the ability to sign off on it. That hasn't happened yet here, and since quotes from the deposition have already been made part of a motion with the court, he's beginning to question whether it's intentional — whether Greitens' attorneys want to keep his client from seeing her own deposition or push back on it."We have not been provided a copy of the transcript, and I think they are intentionally withholding it from us," he says.Ed Dowd, the partner at Dowd Bennett who's been handling comments to the media, did not immediately respond to an email and voicemail message seeking comment. We'll update this post if we hear back.(Interestingly, Albert Watkins, an attorney for the hairdresser's ex-husband, made a similar allegation this morning. Watkins issued a press release saying he too was denied the transcript of his client's deposition — and says he was told it was by the owners of Dowd Bennett's Jim Bennett. “I know, respect and like the Governor’s counsel," Watkins said in a statement. "They are learned counsel and know better than to think they can get away with depriving a deponent of the right to review their deposition transcript.")Putting other rumors to rest, Simpson stated categorically that his client has not been paid by anyone in connection with Greitens — not the governor (long a favorite rumor of Democrats, who are convinced she's been paid for her silence) or his foes. "It is categorically false," Simpson says. "Nobody has paid her anything. Period. Exclamation point. However strongly I can tell you, no one has paid her."Simpson says the woman "didn't want any part of this." Her ex-husband made the matter a news story against her will, Simpson says, and then prosecutors reached out. She agreed to talk only because they'd asked. That's one reason Simpson says he and his client have been so angered by intimations that she wasn't telling the truth about the incident to her husband or in subsequent testimony."It's troubling that Ed Dowd has decided to take a woman who was involuntarily thrust into this and proceeded to smear her in the way he's doing, knowing she didn't want any part of this," Simpson says.