SPRINGFIELD, Mo.–KOLR10 is taking a deeper dive into the details contained within the house committee’s report surrounding its investigation into Governor Greitens’ affair. 

Greitens says it involved consensual sex, but according to the committee’s report, the woman testified under oath there were times when it wasn’t consensual. 

In this story, KOLR10 spoke to an attorney not affiliated with this case about what determined consent versus non-consent.

“Realistically the report from the legislative committee was sort of a bomb shell. It included many more details than anything the public had seen up until this point. With that really came a lot of dangers for Gov. Greitens,” says Adam Woody, an attorney not associated with  the case. 

That’s because the report included allegations from his mistress also referred to as Witness One of sexual misconduct and assault. In the report, Witness One says that Greitens rips open her shirt and pulls down her pants without her consent. Eventually she claims she was forced into having sex with him before she could leave his basement. The report says “As to whether she consented to oral sex at that point Witness One testified ‘it’s a hard question because I did it-it felt like consent, but no I didn’t want to do it’. She further explained, ‘Coerced, maybe. I felt as though that would allow me to leave.’

 “The word no does not have to be uttered for it to not be considered consent. Clearly if again if what she says is to be believed, if she’s crying I believe at one point she said something like do I have to do this or something like that then clearly certainly those types of behaviors those types or actions would indicate that this is without consent, that these behaviors and actions were without consent and that would be enough to support a criminal charge,” says Woody. 

At the same time, Woody knows it could be hard to prove when Greitens insists the sexual relations were consensual.

 “This would be the classic he said, she said,” says Woody. 

On the other hand, Woody says the consistency of her claims helps her case.

 “Part of the legislative committee report also included testimony from three of her acquaintances I believe who she had discussed this event very close in time to it occurring and they all corroborated basically what she told the legislative committee, they all corroborated the facts almost point by point as far as what she told the committee so that’s one thing that weighs in favor of it being credible,” says Woody.