Amos Lee Euins

Mr. SPECTER.
All right. 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.

Mr. SPECTER.
Of what race was he [the shooter], Amos?

Mr. EUINS.
I couldn't tell, because these boxes were throwing a reflection, shaded.

Mr. SPECTER.
Could you tell whether he was a Negro gentleman or a white man?

Mr. EUINS.
No, sir.

Mr. SPECTER. Couldn't even tell that? But you have described that he had a bald—

Mr. EUINS.
Spot in his head. Yes, sir; I could see the bald spot in his head.

Mr. SPECTER.
Now, did you get a very good look at that man, Amos?

Mr. EUINS.
No, sir; I did not.

Richard Gilbride wrote:Richard, my comments are as follows.

Euins told reporter James Underwood that the shooter was a colored man; Underwood's testimony is in the WC volumes.

Yes, Underwood did testify that Euins’ claimed the shooter was a coloured man. In an interview linked to below, Underwood made this same claim (though he said that Euins’ saw him fire from about the fourth floor).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WEwCyL3WTvc

Also, Sgt. David Harkness recorded this data in his pocket notebook, but when he was about to display it during his testimony, Belin cut him off and changed the subject.

Harkness also testified that Euins’ couldn’t tell whether or not he saw a rifle, and when asked by Belin if Euins said the shooter was white or black, Harkness responded by saying that he (Euins) couldn’t identify the shooter.
 
Mr Belin. 

By the way, did your witness ever say whether the person he saw at the window was a white man or a Negro?

Mr Harkness. 

He just told me, he just said he couldn’t identify him. That is what he told me.
 
If Harkness’s testimony was somehow altered, my question is going to be why wasn’t Underwood’s also altered? Also, if Harkness was being deceptive, why would he bring his notebook with information that Euins said the man with the rifle was coloured?

IMO, Euins probably saw Eddie Piper at the window just as Arnold Rowland did, but then he couldn’t tell what race the shooter was (as he said during his testimony), and had just assumed that the shooter was black per his observation of Piper at that window previously.

I hope you don’t think I am trying to belittle you Richard (as this is NOT my intention here), but it doesn’t make any sense to me that you would decide to frame Oswald for the Tippit murder and the President’s assassination, but then use a dark complected man to shoot the President from the 6^th floor window.

I think that once you accept that the wallet bearing ID for Oswald and Hidell was found (or given to Kenneth Croy by Igor Vaganov) in the vicinity of the Tippit murder scene, then I honestly think that you should accept that the same man who shot the President also shot Tippit, and that this man looked like Oswald. The most logical candidate is, IMHO, Larry Crafard. Larry Jones is my second choice for the TSBD shooter. Furthermore, Arnold Rowland identified the man with the rifle as a white man, and both Ronald Fischer and Robert Edwards said the man waiting in the sniper’s nest window was a white man (I know they didn’t see a rifle, but I don’t think that matters).

That being said, I do believe there was a dark complected (Cuban) accomplice with the white shooter, per Ruby Henderson’s interview with the FBI. BTW, I think that Herminio Diaz Garcia is a good suspect for the dark complected accomplice.

Euins was kept at the Sheriff's Office from 1:00 PM until 8:00 PM, all to produce a flimsy 8-line affidavit. Fritz visited Decker sometime between 5:00 PM and 6:00 PM.

I think I know what you’re getting at. Why would they keep him there for so long? Again, I think that Euins saw Piper as did Rowland, and told Underwood, Harkness etc. that the shooter was a black man, and that the DPD and Sheriff’s department persuaded him to think and say otherwise.

His mother received several threatening phone calls shortly before he was due to testify. Amos was a very bright lad. He took the high road and middle ground, in my opinion, when he testified- not accusing the Sheriff's office of altering his story (of a black shooter) but saying they were mistaken. And refusing to commit to Arlen Specter's barrage of questions regarding whether the shooter was white or black, his clothing, etc.

Please see above.

His testimony should be read for the clues he lets out. For example, that the shooter paused to look down at the crowd. That he was suspended like a quail hunter in the brush, extending himself further over the boxes for a better shot. No professional marksman  (who would keep a rigid tripod-like position) would ever do that. There are more clues.

They could certainly be clues, Richard. On the other hand, he could simply have been a frightened 14 year old boy who witnessed the President’s assassination, and his mind may have been playing tricks with him (though I’m not saying he was a liar).

I taped Amos Euins' HSCA interview, but it hasn't been published because of the poor sound quality. Someday I will produce a transcript.

I look forward to reading the transcript.

The most interesting part of that one-hour interview is Euins describing attending the motorcade with a companion, who darted off at the first sound of shots. And Euins said he'd taken a camera with him, but lost it once the shooting started. He didn't explicitly say his companion took off with his camera, but there was little else to conclude.

I think that I might have read about the companion somewhere, but had forgotten about it. Thanks for the reminder.

The companion tale reminded me tellingly of what researcher Anthony Frank used to say at JFK Lancer, that Euins had a cocaine-addicted brother who worked for the CIA.

I don’t think I’ve ever read about the addict brother who worked for the CIA. Very interesting information.

“He [Euins] was telling the motorcycle Officer he had seen a colored man lean out of the window upstairs and he had a rifle…..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 coloured man’. I said, ‘Are you sure it was a colored man?’ He said, ‘Yes, sir’…..”

t would be kind of awesome if Oswald's actual alibi for not being in the 6th floor sniper's nest during the shooting was he was busy in his 2nd floor sniper's nest but I guess that's unlikely. )

beowulf wrote:Sorry for a question that's a bit off topic Hasan but how confident are you the 6th floor SE corner sniper's nest was the only TSBD window someone was shooting from?

beowulf wrote:But why would a 56 year old janitor wake up one day and decide to shoot the president (the one pushing harder for black civil rights any other president since Grant)?

Certainly Piper perjured himself to WC about where he was during the shooting. I can imagine him being tricked into being a 6th floor witness or maybes coerced into being a lookout. But picking rifle and taking shots at human beings? That requires a tremendous amount of crazy and/or dedication (US Army historian Slam Marshall did a famous study in WWII, finding that only  25% of men in combat with semiautomatic rifles ever pulled the trigger, one of the reasons armies soon after went to automatic rifles).

Richard Gilbride wrote:All one can do is present one's case and not be overly concerned about whether others find immediate agreement. Most people, myself included, only change their perceptions, beliefs and understanding of this case slowly. Sometimes it involves overturning cherished myths and misunderstandings; these are not easily changed. 

Greg's buddy David Lifton had a rather novel theory (No. 18) involving landscape architecture.

greg parker wrote:Was that David's work? Gee willikers. I thought it was Mel Brooks' script for "Blazing Assassins".

Mel Brooks is a genius. Since I mistook David's work for that of Mel's, I'd have to admit David must also be a genius. 

Which explains why he is held in such high regard by educators.

ianlloyd wrote:If I recall correctly, but I may well be wrong here, I think Duke Lane virtually debunked Euins as a witness at one point, or am I thinking of someone other than Euins (I know Carr etc.)...? Did Euins say that he was at Love Field and watched AF1 land etc., then still managed to get to DP in time to see the assassination but Duke raised serious doubts about this being possible/probable?