Everyone is pretending that Accardo and Levinson were friends.

If they were friends and Accardo was "getting the jewelry back" why the fuck was it still in his home safe and he was leaving to go out of town, months later? Levinson sued the newspapers and said he was never associated with Accardo. What friend keeps millions of dollars worth of your product at his house and goes out of town? Accardo charged those burglars street tax for the first robbery and killed them for the 2nd robbery.

That rumor of them being good friends came out w Romer but i don’t think it was true
In my personal opinion Romer was extremely favorable and nice to Accardo and I wonder why?
Alex,Auippa and Cerone got decades
Meanwhile Accardo didn’t even have to plead the fifth and blatantly lied in front of congress and they never even indicted him for it or even easier use it as a rico predicate and only needing one more like the laborers Union dental plan rip off and an easy rico conviction but all of that of course never happened and Accardo died a free man....

No way that jewelry got back to Levinson

Also, if Mendell and his crew really did hit Accardo's house, what happened to the jewels the second time? Pascente's book says they couldnt even fence the goods locally after the first theft. You are telling me Mendell robbed Accardos house after the goods were taken from him, then stayed in town and tried to fence them again? The whole story stinks.

Why would Mendell stay in Chicago and go see Ronnie Jarrett if he had just robbed Tony Accardos house.

The whole story sounds more like something Spilotro would do.

https://www.leagle.com/decision/198042789illapp3d3381369



Harry Levinson (plaintiff) brought this action for libel against Time, Inc. (Time), National Broadcasting Co., Inc. (NBC), Columbia Broadcasting System, Inc. (CBS), David S. Jackson, Robert S. Walsh, and David Nelson (defendants). Jackson is the author of the allegedly libelous article which appeared in Time magazine. CBS and NBC are licensees of Chicago television stations. Walsh and Nelson respectively are station managers thereof. Defendants filed motions to dismiss plaintiff's second
[89 Ill. App.3d 339]
amended complaint for legal insufficiency. (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1979, ch. 110, par. 45.) The trial court entered judgment for defendants. Plaintiff has appealed.


Plaintiff has "long conducted" a gem and jewelry business locally, nationally and world-wide. Plaintiff has "extensively advised and been consulted in" his field. He is not now and was never a "public officer or public figure."

On July 30, 1978, Time issued a press release summarizing an article slated by it for early publication, which contained allegedly libelous statements concerning plaintiff. Time also released the complete text of the article. The substance of the release and text was then aired on television in two broadcasts by CBS and three broadcasts by NBC. The article later appeared in Time magazine. The statements concerning plaintiff were "false, malicious, libelous, slanderous, and defamatory." They brought plaintiff into disrepute "and plaintiff's reputation, both as a citizen and as a jeweler, was thereby injured as was his standing in the community and in his business activities." All of this material appears from exhibits appended to plaintiff's second amended complaint.

All five broadcasts reported plaintiff's jewelry store was robbed of more than $1 million worth of goods. Plaintiff's "friend" was Tony "Big Tuna" Accardo, a mob boss. According to the broadcasts, Accardo ordered the gang that robbed plaintiff to return the goods. The gang took the goods to Accardo's house. Deciding they had been shortchanged, some of the gang members later broke into Accardo's house and recovered the goods. Six men, believed to be a part of the burglary gang, were found assassinated.

In addition, one of the CBS broadcasts stated:
Time magazine is reporting tonight that Chicago police think they have a link between Tony `Big Tuna' Accardo and jewelry store owner Harry Levinson — a link that could have led to the death of six burglars. * * *. Police said that Levinson was not cooperative in their investigation. The reason, according to Time is that Levinson had a friend on the other side of the enforcement business * * *. A police informant told Time that Levinson complained to `Big Tuna' who was sympathetic * * *.

The other CBS broadcast stated:
There are new reports tonight tying a million-dollar jewelry heist and the owner of the store that was robbed in with a major crime syndicate figure and the murders of six thieves. Time magazine has published a story linking mob boss Tony Accardo and jewelry store owner Harry Levinson. When Levinson's near north jewelry store was robbed * * *, police said that Levinson was not particularly helpful. One detective said, `He's the most uncooperative victim I've ever seen.' Time magazine's article says the reason Levinson was of so little help was that he had a friend on the inside * * *. Levinson complained to Big Tuna. The article said Accardo sympathized * * *.

One of the NBC broadcasts reported, "It seems Mafia boss Anthony `Big Tuna' Accardo was a friend of the owner of the store that was robbed." The other two broadcasts stated, "the owner of Levinson's asked his friend, Anthony `Big Tuna' Accardo, for help in recovering his goods." Plaintiff alleged various photographs of plaintiff and his jewelry store accompanied these reports on television.

The article appearing in Time stated:
[T]he gang * * * stole more than $1 million worth of jewelry, silver and furs.
After the police discovered the burglary, the store's owner, Harry Levinson did little to help their investigation. Griped a detective on the case: `He was the most uncooperative victim I've ever seen.' But Levinson happened to be acquainted with a prominent figure in a different sort of enforcement business, Big Tuna. Levinson complained, according to a police informant, about his misfortune. For reasons of his own, Big Tuna sympathized. An order soon went out from River Forest: return the swag. The gang reluctantly obeyed * * *.

The article was accompanied by a photograph of plaintiff's jewelry store which included two captions: "Levinson's jewelry store in Chicago, where the bloody tale began" and a portion of a statement ascribed to a police officer, "`He was the most uncooperative victim I've ever seen.'"

In this court plaintiff contends the broadcasts and the article constitute libel per se and application of the innocent construction rule here is neither possible nor proper.





Levinson lost in court because of the way Illinois law was at the time.

From 1962 until 1982, Illinois defamation law had been very favorable for defendants. The state had become a virtual haven for journalists.' This situation was the result of the Illinois Supreme
Court's adoption of the "innocent construction" rule in John v. Tribune Co.2 The rule, which was unique to Illinois, 3 stated that if an allegedly defamatory statement could possibly be given a nondefamatory mean-
ing as a determination of the judge, it would be nonactionableper se.4 Some commentators regarded the adoption of this rule as an attempt by the Illinois Supreme Court to counter the pro-plaintiff bias that had
developed prior to John.

Here is a Mary Ferrell document from almost 15 years prior to that robbery where Leslie Kruse's people approach Levinson about another offer and he refuses.

https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=176361#relPageId=6