Things that make you go ‘Hmmm’

February 27, 2024
By Joe Hunt

After 40 years during which the media has controlled the narrative, their story of the Billionaire Boys Club has become legend: a cautionary tale about rich young men gone haywire, set against the beguiling backdrop of Beverly Hills in its 1980s heyday. My role as the charismatic psychopath who led them was embossed on the mass consciousness through his portrayal by Judd Nelson in the critically acclaimed 1987 NBC miniseries. Nielsen reported that nearly 90 million people saw it. Since then, there have been books, a motion picture, and at least 20 documentaries, several of which have come out in the last few years.

The meme of the BBC is so compelling in its portrayal that it seems iconoclastic, or even socially apostate, to trouble the public with the facts. Yet, the public of this day and age is far more conscious of how often the establishment narrative is either faked or published with callous indifference to the truth. And so, we offer this article and commend it to the more seasoned judgment of our time.

“The public of this day and age is far more conscious of how often the establishment narrative is either faked or published with callous indifference to the truth.”

1. Did you know Ron Levin was researching the U.S./Brazilian extradition treaty right before disappearing? The jury that convicted me did not.

2. Did you know that Levin called his hairdresser, John Duran, the day before he disappeared, pressing him for advice on changing his hair color? The jury that convicted me did not.

3. Did you know that a police detective noticed brown stains consistent with hair dye residue on the porcelain in Levin’s bathroom after he disappeared? The jury that convicted me did not.

4. Did you know that Ron Levin told Jerry Verplancke, the manager of Progressive Savings and Loan of Beverly Hills, that he was investing in Microgenesis Corporation (one of the BBC companies)? My jury didn’t know that. Instead, the prosecutor used testimony from Dean Karny to the effect that Levin had never even heard of Microgenesis — let alone invested in it. (The State’s theory was that I extorted a $1,500,000 check from Levin, made out in favor of Microgenesis. The D.A. argued that a business file supporting a transaction between Levin and Microgenesis was planted.)

5. Did you know that Levin’s next-door neighbor, Karen Marmor, witnessed the distinctive ‘to-do’ lists on his desk when she visited him on June 5th—i.e., the day before his disappearance? The jury that convicted me did not hear from Karen at all. Karen, a career bank officer, was none other than Len Marmor’s wife. The D.A. described Len Marmor as Levin’s closest associate. The revelation that Levin had the ‘to-do’ lists the day before he disappeared totally destroys the state’s theory that the lists were first brought to Levin’s on the night of June 6th, there to be used as a checklist during a murder. Further, it corroborates my assertion—which many had once branded as implausible—that he had given the lists to Levin on June 5th, apparently shortly before Karen saw them on Levin’s desk.

“Karen Marmor’s late revelation undermines the state’s timeline and could have decisively altered the trial’s outcome.”

6. Did you know Levin told at least two people that he planned to flee to avoid imprisonment? The jury that convicted me did not.

7. Did you know that my co-defendant, James Pittman, was tried twice, both trials ending in a mistrial? In the second trial, the jury voted 10-2 for acquittal. After that, the L.A. D.A. dropped murder charges against him. The D.A. told my jury that Pittman shot Ron Levin. So I was convicted of ordering a man to kill Levin, and that man, in a later trial, with the benefit of evidence unavailable to me, was cleared of that crime.

8. Did you know that Levin was out on bail, facing 12 counts of grand theft when he disappeared? Did you know that his mother’s house was used as collateral for the bail bond? Did you know that a week before he disappeared, he had his mother’s house released as collateral and substituted a new bond?

“Levin’s pre-disappearance actions suggest a man preparing for flight, not one on the verge of being murdered”

9. Did you know that the State had no direct evidence of murder — neither blood, nor bullets, nor a body — and that seven citizens came forward after I was convicted, describing encounters with Levin in 1986 and 1987, i.e., they saw Levin two to three years after his disappearance?

10. Did you know that these seven eyewitnesses were presented in the San Mateo trial and found by that jury to be credible and persuasive?

11. Did you know that I am the only person in the history of Anglo-Saxon jurisprudence to be held for a no-body homicide where the alleged victim both planned to flee and was subsequently seen by non-partisan witnesses?

12. Did you know that an American Express Card found by the police at Levin’s house was used at Neiman Marcus in Beverly Hills on the morning of June 7, 1984 — that is, the morning after Levin was allegedly killed?

13. Did you know that all of my co-defendants were released, and the cases against all of them were dropped?

14. Did you know that after the San Mateo jury saw me cross-examine Tom May, Jerry Eisenberg, Dean Karny, and Evan Dicker (his former cohorts in the BBC), they rejected their testimony and concluded that they had all perjured themselves?

15. Did you know that the Chief Detective on the case, Les Zoller, wrote a memorandum to his superiors in 1993 telling them that the new evidence in the case was compelling and that if I were given a retrial, he would likely be acquitted?

Retrial or Resentencing: My Overdue Justice

Under close analysis, the conventional narrative of Joe Hunt and the Billionaire Boys Club is revealed to be decidedly false. Delving into evidence, witness accounts, and legal challenges reveals the critical need for a retrial—or, at the very least, resentencing. This case provokes discussion on whether we repose too much trust in the reliability of judicial processes and verdicts. Is the judicial system really any more reliable than other institutions?

Why, despite credible exonerating evidence and exemplary conduct, have I been overlooked for resentencing?

As I conclude, I invite readers to reflect on two questions: 1) In light of the emergence of credible exonerating evidence after my conviction, why haven’t I been granted a retrial? And 2) In light of my exemplary conduct over nearly 40 years in prison and the extraordinary work I’ve done in the last decade to assist charitable causes, why have I been overlooked for resentencing?