And What About Jackie's Pink Chanel Suit?

[Saintly Oswald]

Did it have any pockets, I'm wondering? Of course, anything could have been provided to America's Princess, even if it wasn't standard equipment. She refused to change her clothes because she wanted "them to see what they have done to Jack." It's a nice line, whatever you believe happened. But, could there have been an even better reason? According to Wikipedia, "The suit is now stored out of public view in the National Archives. It will not be seen by the public until at least 2103, according to a deed of Caroline Kennedy, Kennedy's sole surviving heir." Did the FBI examine that dress? Before it was put into the Archives, I mean. I'm sure somebody has dealt with it by now. But, what was the intent of stashing it away until we're all dead? Until it's all just academic? Until it doesn't really matter anymore?

[Saintly Oswald]

To me, this sort of action, stashing the dress until everybody is dead, indicates that something of historical significance which is not desired to be revealed at present is being stashed. A pink Chanel suit? Did it have falsies? Is that the big secret the Kennedys don't want let out until after we're all dead? I doubt it. Must be something else. But, we'll never know. We'll all be dead.

[David Von Pein]

Jackie's pink suit is being kept from the prying eyes of the public
for reasons of taste only. Isn't this obvious? Why do CTers always
suspect something sinister when it comes to anything regarding the JFK
case--even Jackie's blood-stained dress. Is Caroline supposedly
involved in the "cover-up" too? You CTers are too much.

[Saintly Oswald]

It is evidence, Herr von Pein, evidence in a murder case.

[Saintly Oswald]

This evidence in the still-open murder case of John Kennedy, the pink Chanel dress worn by the person sitting next to him when he was murdered, has a special marker on it, JFK's blood. They can probably fake anything, but that's a pretty good marker nonetheless. Cleaning the dress would remove the blood, so, in theory, it can't be cleaned without it being known. Perhaps there is another marker present which somebody might want to get rid of; they wouldn't be able to get rid of one without the other. Very good evidence, even today, even in 2103. Perhaps somebody wanted to preserve this evidence for history without dealing with the consequences of it being revealed in the present.

On Friday, November 23, 2012 3:37:30 AM UTC-5, Saintly Oswald wrote:

[David Von Pein]

>>> "It is evidence, Herr von Pein [sic], evidence in a murder case." <<<

Jackie's dress is not "evidence" in this murder case. You're cracked
if you think it is.

The dress is no more significant as "evidence" than Clint Hill's
jacket, which was also stained with JFK's blood.


>>> "The pink Chanel dress worn by the person sitting next to him when he was murdered, has a special marker on it, JFK's blood." <<<

So what? Everybody knows the only blood on that dress belonged to JFK.
So how is the dress the least bit important?

>>> "They can probably fake anything, but that's a pretty good marker nonetheless. Cleaning the dress would remove the blood, so, in theory, it can't be cleaned without it being known." <<<

Huh?

>>> "Perhaps there is another marker present which somebody might want to get rid of; they wouldn't be able to get rid of one without the other." <<<

So, you think somebody ELSE besides just JFK bled all over Jackie on
11/22/63?

You conspiracy kooks were all born with a major birth defect -- an
imagination.

[Saintly Oswald]

On Friday, November 23, 2012 4:24:01 AM UTC-5, David Von Pein wrote:
> >>> "It is evidence, Herr von Pein [sic], evidence in a murder case." <<<
>
>
>
> Jackie's dress is not "evidence" in this murder case. You're cracked
>
> if you think it is.

Then I'm cracked. It is evidence that should have been examined. Of course, it wouldn't have made any difference if it had been, because the FBI was covering up the murder.

>
>
>
> The dress is no more significant as "evidence" than Clint Hill's
>
> jacket, which was also stained with JFK's blood.
>

I consider Clint Hill's jacket to be evidence, too, though not as important as Jackie's suit, since she was sitting right next to the murder victim. Did Clint wash his jacket? Has it been locked away for 140 years? Ask Bobby Hargis for his uniform, too, while you're at it. It is ALL evidence.

>
>
>
>
> >>> "The pink Chanel dress worn by the person sitting next to him when he was murdered, has a special marker on it, JFK's blood." <<<
>
>
>
> So what? Everybody knows the only blood on that dress belonged to JFK.
>
> So how is the dress the least bit important?

"Everybody knows" won't stand up in court, sonny.

>
>
>
>
>
> >>> "They can probably fake anything, but that's a pretty good marker nonetheless. Cleaning the dress would remove the blood, so, in theory, it can't be cleaned without it being known." <<<
>
>
>
> Huh?

Huh?

>
>
>
>
>
> >>> "Perhaps there is another marker present which somebody might want to get rid of; they wouldn't be able to get rid of one without the other." <<<
>
>
>
> So, you think somebody ELSE besides just JFK bled all over Jackie on
>
> 11/22/63?

I don't think that is likely, no. But, when you have EVIDENCE you follow the EVIDENCE to wherever the EVIDENCE leads. The EVIDENCE tells you what happened. What "everybody knows" is NOT the EVIDENCE.

>
>
>
> You conspiracy kooks were all born with a major birth defect -- an
>
> imagination.

Thank you. That's the nicest thing you've ever said to me.

[David Von Pein]

>>> "Thank you. That's the nicest thing you've ever said to me." <<<

Figures.

[Saintly Oswald]

On Friday, November 23, 2012 4:48:53 AM UTC-5, David Von Pein wrote:
> >>> "Thank you. That's the nicest thing you've ever said to me." <<<
>
>
>
> Figures.

Goodness gracious me! Mercy sakes alive! I think you have hit upon it, Herr von Pein. Imagination! You think that it is an insult to say that somebody has an imagination. Yet, to investigate something, you need to have an imagination. Maybe you are an honest Lone Nutter, after all, and your problem is that you have no imagination. "Everybody knows" is good enough for you. Somebody locks up evidence for 140 years, then it's obviously simply a matter of good taste, to you. You have no imagination. Sehr interessant...aber dumb! The investigator must imagine what happened if he is to investigate the possibilities. Imagine, David! The evidence, if you have it, will either support or disprove your imaginings. Maybe your theory will be proved wrong, but you will be easily duped if you have no imagination.

[David Von Pein]

Imagination doesn't solve murder cases. Evidence does. And the
evidence proves Oswald's guilt. And always has. (With or without
Jackie's suit.)

The problem with CTers is: "Imagination Run Amok". For proof of this,
just read anything written by James Fetzer, Ralph Cinque, John
Armstrong, David Lifton, and a bunch of other conspiracists.

I suppose you think the blood that Aubrey Rike got on his hands after
placing JFK in the casket at Parkland is "evidence" too, right? He
should have never washed his hands and should have gone straight to
the DPD crime lab to have the blood analyzed, correct?

If you answer "No" to my last question, then tell me what makes the
blood on Rike's hands any different ("evidence"-wise) than the blood
on Jackie's dress?

[Saintly Oswald]

On Friday, November 23, 2012 5:55:44 AM UTC-5, David Von Pein wrote:
> Imagination doesn't solve murder cases. Evidence does. And the
>
> evidence proves Oswald's guilt. And always has. (With or without
>
> Jackie's suit.)

When did I say that Oswald was not guilty?

>
>
>
> The problem with CTers is: "Imagination Run Amok". For proof of this,
>
> just read anything written by James Fetzer, Ralph Cinque, John
>
> Armstrong, David Lifton, and a bunch of other conspiracists.
>

I am none of the above.

>
>
> I suppose you think the blood that Aubrey Rike got on his hands after
>
> placing JFK in the casket at Parkland is "evidence" too, right? He
>
> should have never washed his hands and should have gone straight to
>
> the DPD crime lab to have the blood analyzed, correct?
>

Aubrey Rike was not present at the murder scene, so, while the blood on him could potentially have some significance, I don't think that potential would have been sufficient to expect him to run off to the DPD crime lab without washing his hands.

>
>
> If you answer "No" to my last question, then tell me what makes the
>
> blood on Rike's hands any different ("evidence"-wise) than the blood
>
> on Jackie's dress?

I have already partially answered this, but in addition, having no imagination, you assume that there is only JFK's blood on Jackie's suit. You don't know, Mr. von Pein, what was on her suit. That's why it needs to be tested...by somebody who can be trusted, whoever that may be. If you had an imagination, you might be able to get past this idea that I'm looking for somebody's blood. But, you have no imagination. That is your deficiency, Mr. von Pein.

[Saintly Oswald]

I certainly don't know everything about this case, but I believe that John Connally's jacket was not an article of evidence in the Warren Commission report. This man was shot, too, and I think that outer garment might be (or have been) important evidence. When people get shot, I believe it is customary to test for powder burns to determine if shots were fired at close range. So far as I know, this was not done at all in the JFK shootings. Perhaps I simply have not come across these facts. But, the fact that "everybody knows" that the shots came from snipers should not prevent routine tests from being performed, and in this case, these tests should have been performed on Connally's jacket.

On Friday, November 23, 2012 3:37:30 AM UTC-5, Saintly Oswald wrote:

[Saintly Oswald]

David von Pein, man of mystery! Now you see him! Now you don't! Where will he strike next?

On Friday, November 23, 2012 3:37:30 AM UTC-5, Saintly Oswald wrote:

[Saintly Oswald]

Why would Jackie even keep the Chanel suit, and keep it uncleaned? How does this make any sense? Did she just think that it would be cool? If it's cool now, how is it going to be any more cool in 2106? But, if JFK had been shot at close range, there would be gunpowder residue on it, wouldn't there? All of the other evidence would be taken care of by the cover up, but she still had the dress. Now, it couldn't be used in court because who knows what might have been done to it since. Maybe Jackie wore it afterwards for target practice and it got some gunpowder residue on it then. But, for history, after everybody is dead and gone, somebody might test it for gunpowder and find evidence for how JFK really was murdered. It's Mary Todd Lincoln's dress, then. There might even be something inits pocketses.

On Friday, November 23, 2012 3:37:30 AM UTC-5, Saintly Oswald wrote:

[Saintly Oswald]

I should make some distinctions in my own mind here. Jackie kept that dress until she died. It was Caroline who sent it to the archives. There could be different motivations in play here. Perhaps Jackie kept it as insurance. She had evidence which could expose the assassination plot. Perhaps she kept it to protect herself and her children. Afterwards, Caroline may have had no such concerns. Perhaps she wanted to get rid of the damned thing, and this seemed like a good way to bury the problem. Perhaps she made a deal. I'm sure the murderers could do whatever they want with something in the archives. They probably have people in there. Maybe this was an act of destruction of the evidence. Nobody will be around to have to answer questions in 2103.