Allan Francovich

From Wikispooks
Revision as of 13:55, 27 February 2014 by Robin (talk | contribs) (name)
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Person.png Allan Francovich  Rdf-entity.pngRdf-icon.png
(Conspiracy Theorist, Filmmaaker)
Born1941-03-23
Died1997-04-24 (Age 56)
A talented and courageous film maker who produced unparallelled exposes of various misdeeds by the powerful.
Allan Francovich - charlatan or filmmaker extraordinaire?

Allan Francovich (March 23, 1941 – April 24, 1997) was an American film producer/director who made a series of films focused primarily on the activities of the CIA, though touching on other aspects of deep politics unaddressed in the commercially-controlled media. Francovich died in mysterious circumstances while going through customs at George Bush Intercontinental Airport in Houston, Texas, allegedly of a heart attack.[1]

In his 1994 film "The Maltese Double Cross - Lockerbie", Allan Francovich made the bogus claim that a South African delegation including foreign minister Pik Botha and defence minister Magnus Malan had been booked on Pan Am Flight 103 of 21 December 1988, but had received "a warning from a source which could not be ignored" and changed flights. In June 1996, the South African parliament was told by justice minister Dullah Omar that Pik Botha's delegation were not warned to change flights since they had not been booked to travel on the fatal flight. Francovich had ten months in which to publish a correction to this "flight booking subterfuge", but by the time of his death he had not done so.[2]

In July 2013, on Professor Black's blog, Lockerbie commentator Barry Walker accused Allan Francovich of peddling the "drug conspiracy theory"[3] and called him a "charlatan".

Productions

"The Maltese Double Cross - Lockerbie"

Full article: The Maltese Double Cross - Lockerbie

Allan Francovich produced, wrote and directed the documentary film The Maltese Double Cross, which challenged the Lockerbie Official Narrative that Libya was responsible for the sabotage of Pan Am Flight 103 on 21 December 1988. The film, researched by John Ashton, suggests that the bomb was carried on board the feeder flight Pan Am 103A at Frankfurt airport by an unwitting drug mule, Khalid Jafaar, who had links to Hezbollah, the Drugs Enforcement Agency (DEA) and the CIA.[4]

When his British production company, Hemar Enterprises, released the film in November 1994, it was immediately threatened with legal action by lawyers acting for a US government official (possibly the DEA's Michael Hurley). Several screenings of the film were prevented, but Labour MP Tam Dalyell ignored libel warnings and showed the film at the British House of Commons on November 16, 1994. It was shown on UK national TV (Channel 4) on May 11, 1995.[5], but possibly because of the likelihood of legal action, it has never been publicly screened in USA. It can however be viewed on the internet.[6].

Letter to The Guardian

The day after the Channel 4 broadcast, The Guardian published a letter from Francovich headed "The Lockerbie smears":[7]

"The attacks by the UK and US authorities on my film "The Maltese Double Cross" ("UK and US scorn Lockerbie film", May 11) are exactly what we predicted would happen. The aim is to smear people in the film in order to divert attention from the mass of evidence that supports our claims.
"The film shows how Lockerbie was masterminded by Iran and Syria, not Libya, and that the bomb got on the plane through a botched US intelligence operation based on Middle East drugs and hostages. Elements within western intelligence knew what was happening but failed to act. The authorities can never admit this, as to do so would make Watergate look like a vicar's tea party.
"The smears referred to have been circulating for years and have been used to attack anyone who has suggested that US government agencies have dirty hands in the affair. The latest round of attacks was begun in a letter to Tam Dalyell MP by a Todd Leventhal, of the US Information Agency, who has the Orwellian title "Program Officer for Countering Disinformation and Misinformation". It is disturbing that the supposedly independent Scottish Crown Office should choose to repeat Leventhal's allegations without question.
"The full Crown Office statement states that the Lord Advocate deprecates all attempts to give a version of the Lockerbie story while criminal proceedings are pending. It goes on: 'The proper place for such issues to be explored is in a criminal court.'
"This argument was substantially undermined on November 15, 1991, only a day after the indictments were issued against the two Libyan accused. On that day the US State Department issued 'fact sheets' which detailed the evidence against the two accused. The information they contained has been repeated in numerous media reports and at least two books published in the UK since that time. One of the media reports was an item about how the Scottish and US authorities 'solved' the Lockerbie case, contained in a BBC 'How Do They Do That?' programme broadcast on February 15, 1994. It featured the former Chief Constable of Dumfries and Galloway Police, John Boyd. So far as we are aware, neither the Crown Office nor the Lord Advocate ever issued similarly critical statements against the BBC, John Boyd, or any of the other broadcasters, newspapers or book publishers which have raked over the evidence.
"The British and US authorities insist that the Lockerbie case is still open. Yet during the months my team has been investigating the subject, not one approach has been made by these authorities to see any of the new evidence we have gathered. Is it any wonder that the Libyans are reluctant to stand trial in Scotland or the US?"

Flight booking subterfuge

This is the relevant narrative in Allan Francovich's film:

"The South Africans booked on Pan Am Flight 103 cancelled just before departure. Along with Pik Botha, General Malan the Defence Minister, and General van Tonder, Head of the Secret Service, BOSS, and other senior government officials.
"Botha, Malan and van Tonder confirm this change in travel arrangement to British businessman Tiny Rowland. They tell him the source of the information was of the kind that could not be dismissed.
"Botha rebooks on the earlier flight Pan Am 101. General van Tonder and two other members of BOSS cancel their trip altogether."[8]

Francovich's claim that Pik Botha's party had been booked on the Lockerbie flight was shown to be false by the now retired South African MP Colin Eglin of the Democratic Party. In a letter to a British Lockerbie victim’s family dated 18 July 1996, Mr Eglin wrote of questions he had put to South African Justice Minister Dullah Omar in the National Assembly. On 5 June 1996, Mr Eglin asked Mr Omar if Pik Botha and his entourage:

"had any plans to travel on this flight (Pan Am Flight 103) or had reservations for this flight; if so, why were the plans changed?"

In reply in the National Assembly on 12 June 1996, Justice Minister Omar stated he had been informed by the former minister of foreign affairs (Pik Botha) that shortly before finalising their booking arrangements for travel from Heathrow to New York, they learned of an earlier flight from London to New York: namely, Pan Am Flight 101. They consequently were booked and travelled on this flight to New York. Mr Eglin went on to write in his letter to the Lockerbie victim’s family:

"Since then I have done some more informal prodding. This has led me to the person who made the reservations on behalf of the South African foreign minister Pik Botha and his entourage. This person assures me that he and no-one else was responsible for the reservations, and the reservation made in South Africa for the South African group was originally made on Pan Am 101, departing London at 11:00 on 21 December 1988. It was never made on Pan Am 103 and consequently was never changed. He made the reservation on Pan Am 101 because it was the most convenient flight connecting with South African Airways Flight SA 234 arriving at Heathrow at 07:20 on 21 December 1988."

Mr Eglin gave the victim’s family the assurance that he had 'every reason to trust the person referred to' since he had been given a copy of 'rough working notes and extracts from his personal diary of those days.' In his letter Mr Eglin wrote:

"In the circumstances, I have to accept that an assertion that the reservations of the South African group were either made or changed as a result of warnings that might have been received, is not correct."[9]

Francovich a "charlatan"

In July 2013, on Professor Black's blog, Lockerbie commentator Barry Walker accused Allan Francovich of peddling the "drug conspiracy theory" and called him a "charlatan":

Dear Professor Black,
For the record I must protest about your censoring of my previous comment on the supposed grounds that it was defamatory. Indeed your use of the words "my target" may give anybody reading it the impression I had made some wild or intemperate claim. Perish the thought. However it is not actually clear to whom you were referring.
From material outwith this blog it became clear that Edwin Bollier, possibly through cultural or language difficulties, may have taken Patrick Haseldine's claim to be Emeritus Professor of Lockerbie Studies seriously and was actually seeking his advice.
I pointed out for Herr Bollier's benefit that Haseldine is not a Professor but the proprietor of a tea shop. As a gag I actually wrote that he had used the skills he had acquired in the Diplomatic Service to start his own business. This is not in the least defamatory and I certainly didn't call him a liar.
There is a whiff of hypocrisy here. You are quite happy to publish the most outrageous insinuations, contradicted by historical fact, by others. (i.e. Ronald Reagan and George Bush somehow colluded in the murder of Archbishop Romero.) Very often I point out where claims are demonstrably untrue. While I have denounced others as charlatans and fabricators or even in Robert Baer's case as an "aviation terrorist" this is not defamatory.
However your concern for Mr Haseldine's reputation and your fear of defamation proceedings might be slightly more credible if you had not posted the comment "Patrick Haseldine is a liar."[10]
I take it the name Patrick Haseldine is not to be mentioned. While most followers purport to be interested in the truth I am as interested in claims that are untrue. However it is your blog but please don't insult my intelligence by pretending my comment was defamatory.[11]

Professor Black responded to Barry Walker:

You are entirely mistaken about my concern being that the comment was defamatory of Patrick Haseldine. Your comments about him cause me not the slightest concern. What does cause me concern is your reference to people as charlatans, one recognised meaning of which is "a fraud". You are entitled to believe and to say that someone is wrong, wrongheaded, misconceived, wilfully blind. But you are not entitled to say, at least on a blog which I publish and for which I have legal responsibility, that someone [Allan Francovich] is a charlatan.[12]

Gladio (1992)

Allan Francovich interviewed parties involved in Operation Gladio, especially in Italy, and produced perhaps the most complete account on film of the Gladio/Stay Behind network.

Short Circuit (1985)

A Documentary about the murder of nuns in El Salvador.

On Company Business (1980)

An award winning documentary about the CIA, which made extensive use of interviews with current and former CIA employees.

Others

  • Secret History : Murder in Mississippi (12 Dec, 1991)
  • Dark Passage (1990)
  • The Houses Are Full of Smoke (1987)
  • Inside the CIA (1987)
  • San Francisco Good Times (1977)
  • Chile in the Heart (1975)
  • The Lobster Pot (1973)

Death

Allan Francovich's death occurred while going through US customs at George Bush Intercontinental Airport in Houston, Texas on April 17, 1997, age 56. It was ruled as occurring due to "natural causes" (i.e. heart attack) though its remarkable timing raises the clear possibility that it was not so simple.

 

A Document by Allan Francovich

TitleDocument typePublication dateSubject(s)
On Company BusinessFilm1980CIA

 

Related Documents

TitleTypePublication dateAuthor(s)Description
Document:Allan Francovich Obituaryobituary28 April 1997Tam Dalyell"He was, above all, a seeker after truth, wheresoever that truth might lead." - An appreciation from a friend.
Document:South Africa Minister Denies Knowing Of Lockerbie BombAbstract12 November 1994David TuckerHaving confirmed that South African foreign minister Pik Botha and his 22-strong party had been booked on Pan Am Flight 103 but switched flights after arriving early in London from Johannesburg, spokesman Roland Darroll said: "The minister is flattered by the allegation of near-omniscience."
Document:Unanswered questions over LockerbieArticleJanuary 1995Phil JohnsonAccording to Tam Dalyell MP: "The American and British governments do not want the film shown. The American families do not want the film shown because they want their compensation money ($2.7 billion). More importantly, their lawyers want their money ($810 million)."
Many thanks to our Patrons who cover ~2/3 of our hosting bill. Please join them if you can.



References

  1. Obituary. The New York Times (May 3, 1997).
  2. "Why the Lockerbie flight booking subterfuge, Mr Botha?"
  3. "A Poisoned Pill - The Mysterious Life and Death of Ian Spiro"
  4. "The Maltese Double Cross: Allan Francovich’s Film on Lockerbie and the CIA"
  5. Norton-Taylor, Richard (May 11, 1995), "UK and US scorn Lockerbie film", The GuardianPage Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css must have content model "Sanitized CSS" for TemplateStyles (current model is "Scribunto").
  6. http://www.thedossier.info/video_cover-ups.htm - Scroll down to Allan Francovich - The Maltese Double Cross
  7. Francovich, Allan (May 12, 1995), "The Lockerbie smears", The GuardianPage Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css must have content model "Sanitized CSS" for TemplateStyles (current model is "Scribunto").
  8. "Bogus claim by Allan Francovich"
  9. "South African MP Colin Eglin refutes Francovich claim"
  10. "Another Haseldine lie"
  11. "Francovich a 'charlatan'"
  12. "Not entitled to say 'charlatan'"

See also

External links

Video