Subj:  Euins Initial Statement		Section: 
  To:  Hank Sienzant, 73774,3535	Monday, January 09, 1995 10:25:15 AM
From:  					

Remember that I asked you if you wanted to stop earlier and not keep going further out on the limb? Well, I 
gave you a chance and you did not take it. Now I am going to saw off that limb and watch you fall. In your 
message #285777, you stated that Underwood had never claimed that he interviewed Euins. This is a 
misrepresentation of the evidence by you. At least David Belin was more honest and in his book November 
22, 1963: You Are The Jury he quotes Underwood's WC testimony on page 170 of his book and I quote:

  On the other hand, Underwood, the TV director and cameraman, thought
that he heard a "little colored boy whose last name I remember as 'Eunice'"
talking with an officer on a motorcycle right after the assassination:

  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.
-------------------------------------------------------------------

You claim that you have the WC volumes, yet you either overlooked Underwood's testimony, which is central 
to the issue in dispute, or deliberately misrepresented the testimony. Frankly, this habit of yours to 
misrepresent the evidence in this case makes me suspicious of your agenda in this forum. Perhaps you 
think you can get away with it as most casual readers do not have access to the original source material. 
That is why *I* am here, to set the record straight. You should have admitted right away that Euins first said 
that the man in the window was a colored man. Then we could have debated what we think he really saw 
and the fact that he was wrong. Instead, you misrepresented the evidence to make it appear that Euins had 
never said that the man was colored. This time you got caught. Let's hope it is the last time.

Tony