Mr. James Underwood
Assistant News Director TV and radio
"By that time there was one police officer there and he was a three-wheeled motorcycle officer and a little
colored boy whose last name I remember as Eunice."
Mr. BALL. Euins?
Mr. UNDERWOOD. It may have been Euins. It was difficult to understand when he said his name.
He was telling the motorcycle officer he had seen a colored man lean out of the window upstairs and he had a rifle.
He was telling this to the officer and the officer took him over and put him in a squad car. By that time, motorcycle
officers were arriving, homicide officers were arriving and I went over and asked this boy if he had seen someone with
a rifle and he said "Yes, sir."
I said, "Were they white or black?"
He said, "It was a colored man."
I said, "Are you sure it was a colored man?"
He said, "Yes, sir" and I asked him his name and the only thing I could understand was what I thought his name was Eunice.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Euins did what he was told. He did not challenge his own statements on the stand, and was afraid of getting in trouble.
But he was not going to let Spector, or anybody, tell him what he didn't see. He took a safe route.
He tells Spector it was a mistake, written down wrong when the officer took the affidavit. He meant a white spot on the man's head.
Even though he told reporter, James Underwood, he saw a "colored man"
"He said, "It was a colored man." I said, "Are you sure it was a colored man?" He said, "Yes, sir,""
And then did not put that in an affidavit. Was he not able to?
Arlen Spector is the questioning attorney
Mr. SPECTER Let me ask you about a couple of specific things here, Amos. In the statement you say here that he was a white man.
By reading the statement, does that refresh your memory as to whether he was a white man or not?
Mr. EUINS. No, sir; I told the man that I could see a white spot on his head, but I didn't actually say it was a white man.
I said I couldn't tell. But I saw a white spot in his head.
Mr. SPECTER. Your best recollection at this moment is you still don't know whether he was a white man or a Negro?
All you can say is that you saw a white spot on his head?
Mr. EUINS. Yes, sir.
Mr. SPECTER. Then, did you tell the people at the police station that he was a white man, or did they make a mistake when they wrote that down here?
Mr. EUINS. They must have made a mistake, because I told them I could see a white spot on his head.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
I wonder what was discussed in pre interview before testimony. How was he coached to answer these questions?
Was he told, "We know there was no negro man with a gun, so you are obviously mistaken." End of story.
I can't find the date Euins testified, but by March '64, he had been warned:
National Guardian | March 21, 1964
Dealey Plaza (DP) witness Amos Euins refused to speak with or take questions from the media because “a Secret Service man
said I'd be in real trouble if I talked.
The problem is, the very day of the JFKA Euins signed a Voluntary Statement saying it was a white man. He then explained to the WC on March 10, 1964, that the statement was in error because he had merely said he'd seen a white spot. If he was coached, as you suggest, why didn't he simply tell Specter "Yep, it was a white man who could well have been Oswald"? Consistent with what we find throughout the conspiracy narratives, Specter is an Evil Genius or Incompetent Fool as the CT narrative requires.
Underwood was allowed to testify for the WC on April 1, 1964, three weeks after Euins. Why wasn't he similarly coached or intimidated? Why was he allowed to testify at all? Why did the WC allow this discrepancy to see the late of day? Once again, we have the Evil Genius / Bumbling Idiot thing.
Euins' initial contact was with Officer D. V. Harkness, who testified for the WC on April 9, 1964. In neither his testimony nor his notes taken when speaking with Euins did he have Euins saying the shooter was a Negro - rather an astonishing omission if that is in fact what Euins said. At no time did Harkness suggest to his DPD compadres that the suspect they were seeking might be black. (Despite the clear record, it is a conspiracy factoid all over the internet that Harkness' notes have Euins saying the shooter was black and Belin "cutting him off" when Harkness attempted to say this. Gotta love those conspiracy factoids!)
Forrest Sorrels likewise told the WC on May 7, 1964 that he had interviewed Euins the day of the assassination and that Euins had been unable to say whether the shooter was white or black. In fact, nothing in any of the reports or testimony - other than Underwood's testimony - suggests Euins said anything about the shooter being black. See
https://tangodown63.com/amos-euins-statements/.
So, we can rely on Euins, Harkness and Sorrels and chalk up Underwood's recollections to faulty memory and confusion (he thought the kid's name was Eunice), or we can speculate that Euins, Harkness and Sorrels were coached and intimidated and that Specter and his fellow WC attorneys were Rather Inept in failing to coach Euins into saying that by God the shooter was a white man a lot like Oswald (and in allowing Underwood's conflicting testimony to see the light of day).
It appears to me that feisty old Amos was still getting into trouble as recently as 2019 and may still be alive. Track him down and get back to us! Maybe he and Ruth Paine will hold a joint press conference and reveal The Truth at last.
