Leggo dall’Ansa del 29 giugno: «ROMA – Lee Harvey Oswald non poté uccidere Kennedy da solo: la conferma arriva dai test condotti nella fabbrica dove venne prodotta la presunta arma del delitto. Il fucile Carcano modello 91/38 matricola C2766 con il quale l’ex marine di 24 anni avrebbe assassinato il presidente Usa, esplodendo tre colpi in sette secondi – secondo la commissione Warren – vide infatti la luce nel 1940 in Italia, nella Regia fabbrica d’Armi di Terni. Grazie all’autorizzazione concessa dal Comando Logistico dell’Esercito italiano, l’Ansa ha potuto verificare a Terni che i fucili 91/38 hanno una velocità massima di tiro stimata in 5 secondi per colpo. Lo documenta un video in esclusiva su www.ansa.it, arricchito da immagini del circuito Aptn, dal filmato Zapruder e dalle foto Ansa. Nei test, condotti sotto la supervisione di ufficiali dell’Esercito, il tiratore ha impiegato 19 secondi per mettere a segno i tre colpi, contro i presunti sette secondi occorsi ad Oswald».
Lo speciale dell’Ansa è molto interessante e i video, anche se concisi, molto intriganti. Dove si sostiene che Oswald aveva bisogno di almeno 5 secondi per sparare ogni colpo (e dunque 19, contro i circa 7 necessari), si da per scontato che l’ottica montata sul suo fucile fosse ingombrante, come quella sistemata sul fucile di prova alla Fabbrica d’Armi di Terni, e che quindi rallentasse il caricamento. Inoltre, il tiratore nel filmato impiega alcuni secondi a prendere la mira ogni volta.
Tutto ciò, però, contrasta con le repliche di tiro fatte all’epoca con lo stesso fucile di Oswald dai tiratori dell’FBI. Tre cecchini spararono un centinaio di colpi con il modello C2766 di Oswald contro tre sagome poste a distanze diverse: in tutti i casi riuscirono a sparare e a ricaricare in tempi contenuti tra i 4,6 e gli 8,25 secondi. Dunque, fu dimostrato già allora che, con un fucile non simile ma con lo stesso trovato nel Deposito dei libri, e presumibilmente usato da Oswald, era possibile sparare quei tre colpi nella tempistica stabilita con l’aiuto del film di Zapruder.
Uno dei tiratori dell’FBI, Robert Frazer, ha effettuato quattro serie di spari con quel fucile e questi sono i suoi tempi: 5.9 secondi, 6.2 secondi, 5.6 secondi e 6.5 secondi. Forse, allora, i 19 secondi impiegati a Terni dipendono dal fatto che il fucile non era proprio lo stesso di Dallas? Difficile dirlo solo guardando un filmato. In ogni caso, per chi volesse approfondire la questione delle repliche di tiro dell’FBI allego sotto un estratto dal rapporto della Commissione Warren e dell’interrogatorio di Frazer e di Ronald Simmons, del Laboratorio di Balistica dell’esercito (scusate se è in inglese, ma non ho proprio il tempo di tradurlo).
Per chi invece vuole saperne di più sul fucile segnalo questa pagina dal sito (in italiano) dedicato all’assassinio di Kennedy. Qui, invece, si trova l’intera testimonianza di Frazier, dove si fa anche menzione del SIFAR, il servizio segreto militare italiano dell’epoca.
Poichè oggi si dice nel comunicato ANSA che: «negli archivi Usa l’unico accenno a indagini ufficiali del governo di Roma spunta in un documento del dicembre ’63. Il dispaccio di fonte Cia racconta che il ministro della Difesa in carica, Giulio Andreotti, aveva ordinato un rapporto sul Carcano di Dallas a un certo ‘Depatron Servicé . Il rapporto (del Depatron), sintetizzato nel dispaccio, sostiene cose in parte diverse da quelle poi scritte nel rapporto Warren».
Nella testimonianza a Frazier, l’unica volta che si cita il SIFAR si dice che i Servizi segreti italiani volevano che le informazioni fornite restassero segrete. E visto che la Commissione voleva evitare di inserire “segreti” nel proprio rapporto, ci si chiede se le informazioni dei Servizi italiani fossero davvero importanti da giustificare il segreto. Segue una discussione “off the record” (non registrata) e si passa ad altro, senza più citare il SIFAR o le indagini italiane.
Sarebbe interessante sapere che cosa si sono detti in quello scambio “off the record” e che cosa conteneva davvero il rapporto del SIFAR. Potrebbe anche darsi che il fatto che le informazioni in esso contenute e quelle poi usate dalla Commissione Warren differiscono dipende “solo” dal fatto che quel rapporto non fu utilizzato. Sarebbe quindi interessante potere esaminare il rapporto completo del SIFAR per capire se davvero non era importante o se è stato ignorato apposta, come si lascia intendere ora.
Dunque, che cosa concludere? Per ora non molto. Se non che lo strillo secondo cui Oswald “non poteva avere sparato da solo quei colpi”, appare non dimostrato. O, meglio, sembra invece dimostrato (anche se non dai test di Terni) che Oswald avrebbe potuto sparare quei colpi nei tempi previsti. Certo è che, a 44 anni di distanza, quel delitto continua a sollevare nuovi interrogativi e nuovi dubbi. Se ci saranno sviluppi, tornerò ad aggiornarvi.
Estratto dalla testimonianza di Robert Frazier:
Now, the WC testimony of FBI weapons expert Robert Frazier, taken from 3H402-406. <Quote on>----------------------------------------------- Mr. Eisenberg. Have you tested Commission Exhibit 139 to determine its accuracy under rapid-fire conditions? Mr. Frazier. Yes; I have. Mr. Eisenberg. Can you describe these tests? Mr. Frazier. A series of three tests were made. When we first received the rifle, there was not an opportunity to test it at long range, so we tested it at short range. After we had obtained sample bullets and cartridge cases from it, we fired accuracy and speed tests with it. Three examiners did the firing, all three being present at the same time. The first tests were made at 15 yards, and shooting at a silhouette target. Mr. Eisenberg. A silhouette of a man? Mr. Frazier. A paper silhouette target of a man; yes. Possibly you may wish to mark these, to refer to them. Mr. Eisenberg. These targets were made by you or in your presence? Mr. Frazier. These are actually copies of the actual targets. I have the actual targets here, if you would rather use those. However, the markings show better on the copies than they do on the actual targets. Mr. Eisenberg. Mr. Chairman, I request permission to introduce the copies for the reasons given, as Commission Exhibits 548 and 549. Mr. McCloy. You have made these copies, Mr. Frazier? Mr. Frazier. Well, I had them made. They are actual xerox copies of the original targets, which are black, and do not show the markings placed around the holes. Mr. Eisenberg. Off the record. (Discussion off the record.) Mr. McCloy. Back on the record. Mr. Frazier, you have the original targets that were used in this experiment. Mr. McCloy. Were you one of the three that fired? Mr. Frazier. Yes, sir. Mr. McCloy. Can you identify your target as distinguished from the other two? Mr. Frazier. Yes, sir. Mr. McCloy. Do you have the target that you fired? Mr. Frazier. I fired -- yes, I do. However, another examiner also fired at this same target. Mr. McCloy. Have you made a copy of that -- or did you cause a copy of that target to be made? Mr. Frazier. Yes, sir. Mr. McCloy. And you have that with you? Mr. Frazier. Yes; I do. Mr. McCloy. Have you marked it yet? Mr. Eisenberg. No. That would be 548. Mr. McCloy. Suppose you identify that copy. Mr. Eisenberg. This copy that you are presenting to us has intials at the bottom "CC-R-CK"? Mr. Frazier. Yes, sir. Mr. Eisenberg. And the numbers and letters D-2 on the right hand margin? Mr. Frazier. Yes, sir. Mr. Eisenberg. And that has been copied under your supervision? Mr. Frazier. Yes, sir. Mr. Eisenberg. Mr. Chairman? Mr. McCloy. That can be admitted as Commission Exhibit 548. (The document referred to was marked Commission Exhibit 548 and received in evidence.) Mr. McCloy. Now, is Commission Exhibit 548 an accurate copy of the target which you have -- that you fired, and which you presented? Mr. Frazier. Yes; it is. Mr. Eisenberg. Now, you also have a copy here which has the name on it Killion, and similar intitials, letters, and numbers to the other target. Is this an accurate copy which you had prepared? Mr. Frazier. Yes, sir. That was the target fired by Charles Killion in my presence. Mr. Eisenberg. May I have this admitted as 549? Mr. McCloy. It may be admitted. (The document referred to was marked Commission Exhibit No. 548, and received in evidence.) Mr. Eisenberg. This test was performed at 15 yards, did you say, Mr. Frazier? Mr. Frazier. Yes, sir. And this series of shots we fired to determine actually the speed at which the rifle could be fired, not being overly familiar with this particular firearm, and also to determine the accuracy of the weapon under those conditions. Mr. Eisenberg. And could you give us the names of the three agents who participated? Mr. Frazier. Yes. sir. Charles Killion, Cortlandt Cunningham, and myself. Mr. Eisenberg. And the date? Mr. Frazier. November 27, 1963. Mr. Eisenberg. How many shots did each agent fire? Mr. Frazier. Killion fired three, Cunningham fired three, and I fired three. Mr. Eisenberg. And do you have the times within which each agent fired the three shots? Mr. Frazier. Yes, sir. Killion fired his three shots in nine seconds, and they are shown -- the three shots are interlocking, shown on Commission Exhibit No. 549. Cunningham fired three shots -- I know the approximate number of seconds was seven. Cunningham's time was approximately seven seconds. Mr. Eisenberg. Can you at a later date confirm the exact time? Mr. Frazier. Yes, sir. Mr. Eisenberg. And you will do that by letter to the Commission, or if you happen to come back by oral testimony? Mr. Frazier. Yes, sir. Mr. Eisenberg. And your time, Mr. Frazier? Mr. Frazier. For this series, was six seconds, for my three shots, which also were on the target at Mr. Cunningham fire, which is Exhibit 548. Mr. Eisenberg. Could you characterize the dispersion of the shots on the two targets which you have been showing us, 548 and 549? Mr. Frazier. The bullets landed approximately -- in Killion's target, No. 549, approximately 2 1/2 inches high, and 1 inch to the right, in the area about the size of a dime, interlocking in the paper all three shots. On Commission Exhibit 548, Cunningham fired three shots. These shots were interlocking, or within an eighth of an inch of each other, and were located approximately 4 inches high and 1 inch to the right of the aiming point. The three shots which I fired were -- landed in a three-quarter inch circle, two or three of them interlocking with Cunningham's shots, 4 inches high, and approximately 1 inch to the right of the aiming point. Mr. Eisenberg. Can you describe the second series of tests? Mr. Frazier. The second test which was performed was two series of three shots at 25 yards, instead of 15 yards. I fired both of these tests, firing them at a cardboard target, in an effort to determiine how fast the weapon could be fired primarily, with secondary purpose of accuracy. We did not attempt -- I did not attempt to maintain in that test an accurate rate of fire. This is the actual target which I fired. Mr. Eisenberg. And that target has all six holes in it? Mr. Frazier. Yes, sir -- two series of three holes, the first three holes being marked with the No.1, and the second series being marked No.2. Mr. Eisenberg. Mr. Chairman, I would like this introduced as 550. Mr. McCloy. That will be admitted. (The document referred to was marked Commission Exhibit No. 550, and recieved in evidence.) Mr. Eisenberg. Could you describe for the record the dispersion on the two series? Mr. Frazier. Yes, sir. The first series of three shots were approximately -- from 4 to 5 inches high and from 1 to 2 inches to the right of the aiming point and landed within a 2 inch circle. These three shots were fired in 4.8 seconds. The second series of shots landed -- one was about 1 inch high, and the other about 4 or 5 inches high, and the maximum spread was 5 inches. That series was fired in 4.6 seconds. Mr. Eisenberg. And do you have the date? Mr. Frazier. That also was on the 27th of November. Mr. Eisenberg. Same date as the first tests? Mr. Frazier. Yes, sir. Mr. Eisenberg. And you performed one more test, I believe? Mr. Frazier. Yes, sir. We fired additional targets at 100 yards on the range at Quantico, VA., firing groups of three shots. And I have the four targets we fired here. Mr. Eisenberg. Mr. Chairman, I would like these admitted as 551, 552, 553, through 554. Mr. McCloy. They may be admitted. (The documents referred to were marked Commission Exhibits Nos. 551, through 554, and received in evidence.) Mr. Eisenberg. Who fired these shots, Mr. Frazier? Mr. Frazier. I fired them. Mr. Eisenberg. Can you characterize the dispersion on each of the four targets? Mr. Frazier. Yes, sir. On the Commission Exhibit 551 the three shots landed approximately 5 inches high and within a 3 1/2 inch circle, almost on a line horizontally across the target. This target and the other targets were fired on March 16, 1964 at Quantico, VA. These three shots were fired in 5.9 seconds. The second target fired is Commission Exhibit 552, consisting of three shots fired in 6.2 seconds, which landed in approximately a 4 1/2 to 5-inch circle located 4 inches high and 3 or 4 inches to the right of the aiming point. Commission Exhibit No. 553 is the third target fired, consisting of three shots which landed in a 3-inch circle located about 2 1/2 inches high and 2 inches to the right of the aiming point. These three shots were fired in 5.6 seconds. And Commission Exhibit No. 554, consistion of three shots fired in 6.5 seconds, which landed approximately 5 inches high and 5 inches to the right of the aiming point, all within a 3 1/2 inch circle. Mr. McCloy. The first one is not exactly five inches to the right, is it? Mr. Frazier. No, sir. The center of the circle in which they all landed would be about 5 inches high and 5 inches to the right. Mr. Eisenberg. Mr. Frazier, could you tell us why, in your opinion, all the shots, virtually all the shots, are grouped high and to the right of the aiming poiint. Mr. Frazier. Yes, sir. When we attempted to sight in this rifle at Quantico, we found that the elevation adjustment in the telescope sight was not sufficient to bring the point of impact to the aiming point [...] Mr. Eisenberg. Do you know when the defect of this scope, which causes you not to be able to adjust the elevation crosshair in the manner it should be -- do you know when this defect was introduced into the scope? Mr. Frazier. No; I do not. However, on the back end of the scope tube there is a rather severe scrape which was on this weapon when we received it in the laboratory, in which some of the metal has been removed, and the scope tube could have been damaged. Mr. Eisenberg. did you first test the weapon for accuracy on November 27th? Mr. Frazier. Yes, sir. Mr. Eisenberg. Have you any way of determining whether the defect preexisted November 27th? Mr. Frazier. When we fired on November 27th, the shots were landing high and slightly to the right. However, the scope was apparently fairly well stabilized at that time, because three shots would land in an area the size of a dime under rapid-fire conditions, which would not have occurred if the interior mechanism of the scope was shifting. Mr. Eisenberg. But you are unable to say whether -- or are you able to say whether -- the defect existed before November 27th? That is, precisely when it was introduced? Mr. Frazier. As far as to be unable to adjust the scope, actually, I could not say when it had been introduced. I don't know actually what the cause is. It may be that the mount has been bent or the crosshair ring shifted. <Quote off>-------------------------------------------------- Now, describing the most realistic of the Warren Commission's shooting tests, is Ronald Simmons of the Army's Ballistics Research Laboratory. This testimony is taken from 3H444-447. <Quote on>-------------------------------------------------- Mr. Eisenberg. Mr. Simmons, did you have a test run to determine the possibility of scoring hits with this weapon, Exhibit 139, on a given target at a give distance under rapid-fire conditions? Mr. Simmons. Yes; we did. We placed three targets, which were head and shoulder silhouettes, at distances of 175 geet, 240 feet, and 265 feet, and these distances are slant ranges from the window lege of a tower which is about 30 feet high. We used three firers in an attempt to obtain hits on all three targets within as short a time interval as possible. I should make one comment here relative to the angular displacement of the targets. We did not reproduce these angles exactly from the map which we had been given because the conditions in the field were a little awkward for this. But the distance -- the angular distance from the first target to the second was greater than from the second to the third, which would tend to correspond to a longer interval of time between the first and second impact than between the second and third. The movement of the rifle was greater from the first to the second target than from the second to the third. Mr. Eisenberg. Mr. Simmons, were your marksmen instructed to aim at the three targets in consecutive order? Mr. Simmons. The marksmen were instructed to take as much time as they desired at the first target, and then to fire -- at the first target, being at 175 feet -- to then fire at the target emplaced at 240 feet, and then at the one at 265 feet. Mr. Eisenberg. Can you state where you derived these distances? Mr. Simmons. These distances were the values given on the survey map which were given to us. Mr. Eisenberg. Are you sure they were not the values I gave to you myself? Mr. Simmons. I stand corrected. These are values -- we were informed that the numbers on the survey map were possibly in error. The distances are very close, however. Mr. Eisenberg. For the record, the figures which I gave Mr. Simmons are approximations and are not to be taken as the Commission's conclusive determination of what those distances are. Mr. Simmons. For our experiment, I do not see how a difference of a few feet would make any difference. Mr. Eisenberg. Now, Mr. Simmons, did you take pictures or have pictures taken showing what that range looked like? Mr. Simmons. Yes; I have copies of these pictures here. I show you three pictures -- the first showing the window from which the weapon was fired in our experiments; the second showing the view of the three targets from the window; and the third showing a riflemen in position. Mr. Eisenberg. Mr. Simmons, did you take these pictures yourself? Mr. Simmons. No; these pictures were taken by one of the camera men from the development and proof services. Mr. Eisenberg. Did you see the scenes represented in these pictures? Mr. Simmons. Yes. Mr. Eisenberg. Are these pictures accurate reproductions of these scenes? Mr. Simmons. Yes, sir. Mr. Eisenberg. Mr. Chairman, I would like to have the first, second, and third pictures described by Mr. Simmons admitted as exhibits. That will be 579 for the first, 580 for the second, and 581 for the third. Mr. McCloy. They may be admitted. (The photograghs referred to were marked Commission Exhibits Nos. 579, 580, and 581 and received in evidence.) Mr. Eisenberg. Mr. Simmons, the targets were -- well, can you describe the targets for us? Mr. Simmons. The targets are standard head-and-shoulders silhouettes, and they consist of approximately 2 square feet in area. Mr. Eisenberg. How many marksmen were involved? Mr. Simmons. We used three riflemen. Mr. Eisenberg. And can you tell us what their background was? Mr. Simmons. Yes. All three riflemaen are rated as Master by the National Rifle Association. Two of them are civilian gunners in the Small Arms Division of our Development and Proof Services, and the third is presently in the Army, and he has considerable background as a rifleman, and also has a Master rating. Mr. Eisenberg. Each fired one or more series of three rounds? Mr. Simmons. Each fired two series of three rounds, using the telescopic sight. Then one of the firers repeated the exercise using the iron sight -- because we had no indication whether the telescope had been used. Mr. Eisenberg. So the total number of rounds fired was what? Mr. Simmons. 21. Mr. Eisenberg. Did you bring with you targets or copies of the targets? Mr. Simmons. I brought photos of the targets. Mr. Eisenberg. Did you take these photograghs, Mr. Simmons, or have them taken under your supervision? Mr. Simmons. These photograghs were taken by the photograghic laboratory in our Ballistic Measurement Laboratory, which is one of the complex of laboratories within the Ballistic Research Laboratory. Mr. Eisenberg. Can you verify these photograghs as being accurate reproductions of the targets? Mr. Simmons. Yes, sir. Mr. Eisenberg. Mr. Chairman, may I have these admitted as 582, 583, and 584? Mr. McCloy. They may be admitted. (The photograghs referred to were marked Commission Exhibits Nos. 582, 583, and 584 for identifaction and received in evidence.) Mr. Eisenberg. Mr. Simmons, could you discuss the results of the tests you ran, by using these photograghs? Mr. Simmons. Exhibit 582 is the target which was emplaced at 175 feet. All firers hit the first target, and this was to be expected, because they had as much time as they desired to aim at the first target. As you can see from the picture, the accuracy of the weapon is quite good. Mr. Eisenberg. That first target is what distance? Mr. Simmons. 175 feet. And we had to make an assumption here about the point of aim. It is quite likely that in fact each man was aiming at a different portion of the target -- there were no markings on the target visible to the firer. Mr. Eisenberg. Did I understand you just told the firers to aim at the target without referring to -- Mr. Simmons. Yes. Mr. Eisenberg. There is an apparent crossline running darkly through that photogragh. Mr. Simmons. These lines were drawn in afterwards, in order for us to make some measurements from the actual impact point. The target which was emplaced at 240 feet, as shown in Exhibit 583 -- we had rather an unusual coincidence with respect to this target. This involved the displacement of the weapon to a sufficient angle that the basic firing position of the man had to be changed. And because they knew time was very important, they made the movement very quickly. And for the first four attempts, the firers missed the second target. Of course, we made a rather, I guess, disadvantageous error in the test by pointing out that they had missed on the second target, and there was a conscious effort made on the additional rounds to hit the second target. On the third target, the angle through which the weapon had to be moved to get to the third target from the second was relatively small, and there were only two rounds which did not hit the target at 270 feet. One of these rounds, by the way, was used in the sequence where the iron sight was employed. Mr. Eisenberg. Mr. Simmons, when you said that the firers had to make a large shift relatively in their firing position, and were in a hurry, is this your interpretation or is this based on discussions with them subsequently? Mr. Simmons. This is based on discussions with the firers after the experiment? Mr. Eisenberg. After these tests were finished, did you make a determination of the amount of error -- average amount of error in the aim of these riflemen? Mr. Simmons. Yes. By assuming that all riflemen had aimed at the intersection of the lines that we have drawn on these pictures, we calculated the total aiming -- the aiming error associated with the three riflemen -- this is one number to describe the accuracy of all three riflemen. And against the first target the accuracy observed was about .7 mils, in standard deviation. Against the second target, the accuracy was 1.4 mils. And against the third target, it was 1.2 mils. Mr. Eisenberg. Again could you convert those at a hundred yards to inches? Mr. Simmons. 0.7 of a mil at 100 yards is approximately 2 inches. 1.4 mils is approximately 4 inches. And 1.2 mils is approximately 3 1/2 inches. Mr. Eisenberg. In arriving at these figures, had you discounted the round-to-round dispersion as determined in the bench rest test? Mr. Simmons. Yes. We have subtracted out the round-to-round dispersion. Mr. Eisenberg. But the actual accuracy of the riflemen would have to include the round-to-round dispersion, would it not? Mr. Simmons. Yes; it would. Mr. Eisenberg. Why did you then subtract the round-to-round dispersion figure, or discount it? Mr. Simmons. We wanted to determine what the aiming error itself was associated with the rifle. Mr. Eisenberg. Can you give us the times in which the various riflemen used to fire the three shots in each sequence? Mr. Simmons. Yes. And the numbers which I will give you will be the average of two readings on stop watches. Mr. Eisenberg. For each rifleman? Mr. Simmons. For each exercise. Mr. Hendrix fired twice. The time for the first exercise was 8.25 seconds; the time for the second exercise was 7.0 seconds. Mr. Staley, on the first exercise, fired in 6 3/4 seconds; the second attempt he used 6.45 seconds. Specialist Miller used 4.6 seconds on his first attempt, 5.15 seconds in his second attempt, and 4.45 seconds in his exercise using the iron sight. Mr. Eisenberg. What was the accuracy of Specialist Miller? Mr. Simmons. I do not have his accuracy separated from the group. Mr. Eisenberg. Is is possible to separate the accuracy out? Mr. Simmons. Yes; it is, by and additional calculation. Mr. Miller succeeded in hitting the third target on both attempts with the telescope. He missed the second target on both attempts with the telescope, but he hit the second target with the iron sight. And he emplaced all three rounds on the target, the first target. Mr. Eisenberg. How did he do with the iron sight on the third target? Mr. Simmons. On the third target he missed the boards completely. And we have not checked this out. It appears that for the firing posture which Mr. Miller -- Specialist Miller uses, the iron sight is not zeroed for im, since his impacts on the first and second targets were quite high, and against the third target we would assume that the projectile went over the top of the target, which extended only a few inches over the top of the silhouette. Mr. Eisenberg. What position did the rifleman fire from, Mr. Simmons? Mr. Simmons. The firers braced an elbow on the window sill and used pretty much a standard sitting position, using a stool. Mr. Eisenberg. How much practice had they had with the weapon, Exhibit 139, before they began firing? Mr. Simmons. They had each attempted the exercise without the use of ammuntion, and had worked the bolt as they tried the exercise. They had not pulled the trigger during the exercise, however, because we were a little concerned about breaking the firing pin. Mr. Eisenberg. Could you give us an estimate of how much time they used in this dry-run practice, each? Mr. Simmons. They used no more than 2 or 3 minutes each.
11 risposte
Vi segnalo che Diego Verdegiglio ha appena pubblicato sul sito una lunga inchiesta sulla vicenda. La potete leggere qui: https://www.massimopolidoro.com/indagini/chi-ha-sparato-davvero-a-jfk.html
msm