Difference between revisions of "Allan Francovich"

From Wikispooks
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(Trim and fix broken link)
(Expanding and referencing)
Line 5: Line 5:
 
[[File:Maltese_Double_Cross.jpg|400px|thumb|right|''The Maltese Double Cross - Lockerbie'']]
 
[[File:Maltese_Double_Cross.jpg|400px|thumb|right|''The Maltese Double Cross - Lockerbie'']]
 
{{FA|The Maltese Double Cross - Lockerbie}}
 
{{FA|The Maltese Double Cross - Lockerbie}}
Allan Francovich produced, wrote and directed The Maltese Double Cross, which challenged the official story that Libya was responsible for the 1988 [[Lockerbie bombing]]. The film suggests that the bomb was carried on board the aircraft by unwitting drug mule, with links to [[Hezbollah]], the [[DEA]] and the CIA.
+
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 [[DEA]] and the [[CIA]].
  
 
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.<ref>{{Citation
 
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.<ref>{{Citation
Line 11: Line 11:
 
   | first =Richard
 
   | first =Richard
 
   | title =UK and US scorn Lockerbie film
 
   | title =UK and US scorn Lockerbie film
   | newspaper =[[The Guardian]]
+
   | newspaper =The Guardian
 
   | pages =
 
   | pages =
 
   | date =May 11, 1995}}</ref>, 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.<ref>http://www.thedossier.info/video_cover-ups.htm - Scroll down to ''Allan Francovich - The Maltese Double Cross''</ref>.
 
   | date =May 11, 1995}}</ref>, 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.<ref>http://www.thedossier.info/video_cover-ups.htm - Scroll down to ''Allan Francovich - The Maltese Double Cross''</ref>.
  
 
====Letter to ''The Guardian''====
 
====Letter to ''The Guardian''====
The day after the Channel 4 broadcast, ''[[The Guardian]]'' published a letter from Francovich headed "The Lockerbie smears":<ref>{{Citation
+
The day after the Channel 4 broadcast, ''The Guardian'' published a letter from Francovich headed "The Lockerbie smears":<ref>{{Citation
 
   | last =Francovich
 
   | last =Francovich
 
   | first =Allan
 
   | first =Allan
Line 22: Line 22:
 
   | first2 =
 
   | first2 =
 
   | title =The Lockerbie smears
 
   | title =The Lockerbie smears
   | newspaper =[[The Guardian]]
+
   | newspaper =The Guardian
 
   | pages =
 
   | pages =
 
   | year =
 
   | year =
 
   | date =May 12, 1995}}</ref>
 
   | date =May 12, 1995}}</ref>
:"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 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 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 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.'
+
:"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 [[Investigation into the bombing of Pan Am Flight 103|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]], 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.
+
:"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 Bombing|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?"
+
:"The British and US authorities insist that the [[Lockerbie Bombing|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?"
 +
 
 +
====Francovich a "charlatan"====
 +
In July 2013, on [[Professor Black]]'s blog, Lockerbie commentator [[Barry Walker]] accused Allan Francovich of peddling the "drug conspiracy theory"<ref>[http://e-zeecon.blogspot.co.uk/2008/11/poisoned-pill-mysterious-life-and-death.html "A Poisoned Pill - The Mysterious Life and Death of Ian Spiro"]</ref> 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 [[Edwin Bollier|Herr Bollier]]'s benefit that [[Patrick Haseldine|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 [[Patrick Haseldine#Diplomatic career|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 H W Bush|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 [[Patrick Haseldine|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."<ref>[http://lockerbiecase.blogspot.co.uk/2013/02/another-haseldine-lie.html "Another Haseldine lie"]</ref>
 +
: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.<ref>[http://lockerbiecase.blogspot.co.uk/2013/07/swire-hails-new-play-on-lockerbie.html?showComment=1375178575837#c2039732683676837897 "Francovich a 'charlatan'"]</ref>
 +
 
 +
[[Professor Black]] responded to [[Barry Walker]]:
 +
:You are entirely mistaken about my concern being that the comment was defamatory of [[Patrick Haseldine#British Blackout|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.<ref>[http://lockerbiecase.blogspot.co.uk/2013/07/swire-hails-new-play-on-lockerbie.html?showComment=1375179648599#c4974118961766466594 "Not entitled to say 'charlatan'"]</ref>
  
 
===Gladio (1992)===
 
===Gladio (1992)===
Line 37: Line 50:
  
 
===Short Circuit (1985)===
 
===Short Circuit (1985)===
A Documentary about the murder of nuns in [[El Salvador]].
+
A Documentary about the murder of nuns in El Salvador.
  
 
===On Company Business (1980)===
 
===On Company Business (1980)===
Line 58: Line 71:
  
 
==See also==
 
==See also==
* [[The how, why and who of Pan Am Flight 103]]
+
* [[Lockerbie Official Narrative]]
 +
* [[Cameron's Report on Lockerbie Forensic Evidence]]
 +
* [[Document:The Framing of al-Megrahi#The Framing of al-Megrahi|The Framing of al-Megrahi]]
 +
* [[The How, Why and Who of Pan Am Flight 103]]
  
 
==External links==
 
==External links==
Line 73: Line 89:
 
[[Category:Gladio]]
 
[[Category:Gladio]]
 
[[Category:Premature Death]]
 
[[Category:Premature Death]]
 +
[[Category:Lockerbie]]

Revision as of 14:40, 28 October 2013

Allan Francovich (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]

Productions

The Maltese Double Cross (1994)

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 DEA and the CIA.

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.[2], 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.[3].

Letter to The Guardian

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

"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?"

Francovich a "charlatan"

In July 2013, on Professor Black's blog, Lockerbie commentator Barry Walker accused Allan Francovich of peddling the "drug conspiracy theory"[5] 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."[6]
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.[7]

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.[8]

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.

References

  1. Obituary. The New York Times (May 3, 1997).
  2. 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").
  3. http://www.thedossier.info/video_cover-ups.htm - Scroll down to Allan Francovich - The Maltese Double Cross
  4. 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").
  5. "A Poisoned Pill - The Mysterious Life and Death of Ian Spiro"
  6. "Another Haseldine lie"
  7. "Francovich a 'charlatan'"
  8. "Not entitled to say 'charlatan'"

See also

External links

Video