General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsAnd... Let Us Not Forget... Of Jackie That Day...

<snip>
Jacqueline Kennedy was seated in the back seat of the open-top Lincoln Continental to Kennedy's left side as it traveled through Dallas. Immediately after Kennedy was shot in the head, the suit was spattered with his blood;[citation needed] when Lady Bird Johnson saw the car at Parkland Hospital in Dallas following the assassination, she said:
At the hospital, she kept her blood-stained suit on but was not wearing the hat. William Manchester wrote in Death of a President:
The whereabouts of the hat today are unknown, and the last person known to have had it her personal secretary, Mary Gallagher will not discuss it.[11] Several people asked Jacqueline Kennedy whether she would like to change her suit but she refused. She told Lady Bird, who had asked her whether she wished to have someone in to help her change:
Despite the advice of John F. Kennedy's physician, Admiral George Burkley, who "gently tried to persuade her to change out of her gore-soaked pink Chanel suit,"[15] she wore the suit alongside Lyndon B. Johnson as he was sworn in as the 36th President of the United States.[13] In the photograph of the inauguration (right), the blood stains cannot be seen as they were on the right-hand side of the suit. Lady Bird recalls that during the swearing-in on Air Force One:
Kennedy had no regrets about refusing to take the blood-stained suit off; her only regret was that she had washed the blood off her face before Johnson was sworn in.[13]
<snip>
More: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pink_Chanel_suit_of_Jacqueline_Bouvier_Kennedy
Kath1
(4,309 posts)I was 5 years old at the time and I still remember it. One of my youngest memories, and a sad one.
Frustratedlady
(16,254 posts)Read it carefully...
"Oh, no ... I want them to see what they have done to Jack."
I have always believed what she said, not the "official" reports.
And, so it goes...
WillyT
(72,631 posts)longship
(40,416 posts)That's it! Confirms all the cockamamie conspiracy theories simultaneously.
Because she said "they".
Oh boy. Where to start... I suspect that the only way is to not start in the first place.
I leave it at "It was one the saddest days of my life."
My best regards, WillyT.
WillyT
(72,631 posts)And they weren't the only ones.
longship
(40,416 posts)There is no doubt that he fired the three bullets, two of which hit JFK, one which went on to hit Connelly. The forensic evidence of that is beyond any question. The only question left is whether Oswald was part of a larger conspiracy.
But then, one is treading into the psychology of Oswald. To me, and to many others, he comes off as just the type of loner who might do something like this on his own.
He may very well be just one of those little people who changes history with assassination. Like the guy who killed Archduke Ferdinand. Or the one who killed McKinley.
When a very popular leader is killed, one might inevitably look for a justification for an equally grand event surrounding that event. Sometimes it is just some loner loser with a gun.
I was 15 in 1963 when this happened and I delivered The Detroit News every day on my bicycle. Yes, I read Mark Lane's book after the Warren Commission released their findings. But over the years I found that all the arguments were anomalies, which are common in any big historic event. So it is really easy to construct a conspiracy narrative surrounding such an event, which is why there are so many of them surrounding the JFK assassination, and why nearly none of them align with each other.
Sometimes it is just some loser loner with a gun. Actually, and historically, it often is.
As always,
longship
WillyT
(72,631 posts)Why don't they just let it lie.
longship
(40,416 posts)Why not let dead presidents lie? Not all historic events are grand conspiracies. Sometimes a lone kook can change history. History is messy like that. Looking for anomalies to hitch ones wagon on a grand conspiracy accomplishes nothing other than creating a conspiracy out of the inevitable anomalies in any historic event.
Maybe that is just how events happen in the world. Once one realizes that inevitability one can see the importance of the event without adding any extra baggage. Like any possibility that CIA/Cuba/CCCP/Mafia/Teamsters/Fucking-LBJ killed JFK. Or, maybe it was just a lone loser with a gun.
Certainly the forensic evidence suggests nothing other than that.
Jackpine Radical
(45,274 posts)Put that in the context of your quote.
Wow.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)There must have been some event or events that caused her to use that word.
She must have had a suspicion as so many of us do that there was more than one person behind Kennedy's assassination.
KT2000
(22,151 posts)He was warned before the trip - and advised not to go because of the hatred of him in Dallas. They deared something would happen. The "they" could mean those people.
zeemike
(18,998 posts)The Wink...and look at the pleased look on Lady Birds face

WillyT
(72,631 posts)
And this one...

Mira
(22,685 posts)Lady Bird's face was just built that way. She is, in my opinion, not smiling at all. None of this means I have not studied all of this carefully and will never be sure it was Oswald as a lone gunman.
wheniwasincongress
(1,307 posts)rather likely a quick grimace or swallowing...
zeemike
(18,998 posts)I have always had the feeling that she was as ruthless as her husband.
love_katz
(3,262 posts)I was in 5th grade on that terrible day. Old enough to understand how horrible it all was...but I've never seen this information before.
I've read some stuff about the blood stained suit, and yes, I've caught the word "they" in the quote, about how she wanted 'them' to see just what 'they' had done.
'They' have never gone away, nor stopped their horrid actions. These were and are the people who wanted and still want to kill the Dream of having our country REALLY be about freedom and justice for all.
It may not be safe to say, but we need a revolution. Not the kind with violence and weapons, 'they' know how to crush something like that. It needs to be grass-roots, wide spread, and completely leaderless and unorganized. Something that 'they' can't deal with...or stop.
For Jackie:
MissDeeds
(7,499 posts)with grace and dignity.
K&R
CaliforniaPeggy
(156,620 posts)WillyT
(72,631 posts)
Lugnut
(9,791 posts)It's a day I'll never forget.
cantbeserious
(13,039 posts)eom