Bob Dylan Sex Abuse Allegation

Hangdogroad

His movements and activity in 1965 are very heavily documented, bar the Beatles he was the biggest musician of the mid 60s. It should be easy to prove or disprove where he was during the timeline of the allegations.

dogbert27

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9902099/Lawyer-Bob-Dylan-accuser-insists-tour-dates-line-claims.html

It's just difficult to see how a 12 year old could be groomed in a Chelsea hotel apartment over a 6 week period with Dylan's schedule below. The accuser is unknown. Her parents have passed away so we cannot know who they were to say if the accuser was in fact in New York at the time. People working in the hotel will be long gone.

This case would be impossible to prove and if anything it's a lawyer taking a chance on a big pay off considering Dylan sold his entire catalogue for 300 million dollars in December 2020.

The schedule shows the musician had been on the road on the West Coast and the UK for most of that time period.  

He had a live performance in Berkeley, California on April 3 and one in Vancouver on April 9. 

He played a show in Portland two weeks later on April 23 and another in Seattle the following day. 

Dylan then embarked on his England tour from April 30 to May 10.  

He arrived in London just a few days earlier on April 26, and did not return to the US until June 2, according to the dates.  

The UK tour was also documented in D.A. Pennebaker's 1967 film Don't Look Back.  

A timeline of Dylan's activities throughout the year show he took a trip to Portugal with first wife Sara Lowndes in 'mid May' after his tour and returned home with her on June 2. 

El_Duderino 09

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117774510#Comment_117774510

Does the tour dates preclude his meeting the girl at any points during during 6 week period?

Thinkingaboutit

This is beyond unlikely. Bob Dylan was followed and filmed, and was on tour for all but ten days, if that. Six weeks is an impossibility. Short of taking a dump, Bob Dylan had no privacy then.

The Nal

Be interested to hear what Joan Baez has to say about all this. And Sara. Both were with him around that time.

OMM 0000

There needs to be a statute of limitations on this stuff.

I absolutely understand the need to give children time to understand what happened to them, therapy, etc., so they can come for their abuser when they're ready, but surely 55 years is excessive.

Although, thinking about this more, perhaps even sullying his name (assuming he's guilty) is somewhat of a win for her.

El_Duderino 09

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117774816#Comment_117774816

Does the girl allege that he groomed her every day for 6 weeks or over that he groomed her over a 6 week period?

Ps. I've asked this guesting 4 or 5 times now and nobody seems to either know or be interested in answering. The distinction between the 2 is important to how significant the timeliness is.

KaneToad

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117771562#Comment_117771562

The William Roache (Ken Barlow, Coronation Street) case is another that comes to mind. The accusers didn't seem to be able to distinguish between him and his character on the TV show. The accusers also said she wanted to get him on the Jeremy Kyle show to take a lie detector test.

I hope that all sex crime offenders are caught, tried and convicted. But we need to be wary about equating allegations with guilt.

The Nal

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117774845#Comment_117774845

Just says "over a 6 week period". So dunno if that mean "for 6 weeks" or a few times within a 6 week period.

Her lawyer would want to be on the money at every turn here. There are "Dylanologists" out there who knows hat he had for breakfast most days during that era.

Fandymo

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117772503#Comment_117772503

Fcuking kids should never have been ok.

El_Duderino 09

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117775172#Comment_117775172

But that's crucial to whether the timeline is meaningful or not. If she said "every day for 6 weeks" then the timeline exonerates BD if she said "over a period of 6 weeks" then the timeline is meaningless because it leaves windows where the alleged incidents could have taken place.

To go a little deeper, if she specified dates which the timeline rules out (e.g. she said they met in London but the tour dates show he was on Canada all that week) , then that's important. But that's not what we have here. At this point, while we only know her claim is that it occurred "over 6 weeks", the timeline is absolutely useless to ruling it in or out.

briany

Complete nonsense. If Bob Dylan gets done on account of this, but David Bowie's reputation somehow remains clean, then something is desperately wrong.

El_Duderino 09

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117775206#Comment_117775206

Of course it shouldn't have been ok. But it wasn't a problem for those artists at the time. That much is clear.

I've edited the post you quoted to clarify that I don't think it was ever ok for those artists to have sex with kids. I'm commenting on how the society at the time behaved and they certainly didn't make it a problem for the stars mentioned.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117775337#Comment_117775337

Society? I beg to differ-the UK kicked Gerry Lee Lewis out of England for marrying a 14 year old girl - which “society” are you speaking of? And that was many years before 1965- as a result both the UK and USA shunned Gerry Lee and his career effectively ended at that point

El_Duderino 09

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117775434#Comment_117775434

Actually, you're right about Lewis. The girl he married was 13 and it did damage his career for a while (we're not talking about criminal proceedings). You're exaggerating that he was kicked out of the UK, he wasn't kicked out. Why exaggerate?

No such trouble for Elvis, mind. His career was grand.

In any case, the point is that it wasn't such a big deal back then and people were more accepting of it for one reason or another. The notion the BD couldn't possibly have done it is not supported by anything we've seen. We don't have a clue if the allegations are true or not. We just don't have evidence one way or the other. If you've made up your mind about whether it happened or not (or are leaning one way or the other) then you're doing so based purely on prejudice.

OMM 0000

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117775333#Comment_117775333

The Bowie thing is almost like a bug in the code used by humans. He was literally a pedophile but almost everyone's ok with it because they like his music.

Really?!

dogbert27

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117774757#Comment_117774757

The claim is grooming took place over a 6 week period between April and May 1965. With his schedule taking across America and across the Atlantic the claim does not look plausible

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117775487#Comment_117775487

His shows were cancelled and his hotel told him to find alternative accommodation- I’d call that kicked out myself

Inquitus

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117774843#Comment_117774843

The State of New York did away with the SOL for a year to allow for prosecutions relating to Epstein and others to proceed, it as reverted back now, this case was filed the last day the change was effective.

Personally I think usually there as been a lot of smoke where a fire is eventually found, and this is not the case with Bob Dylan. There is just one 50 yo allegation that accuses him of doing something in NY during a timeframe he was almost never in NY.

OMM 0000

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117775587#Comment_117775587

Well her memory might be wrong on the details (it's very easy to get dates mixed up), but even if we assume she is 100% telling the truth and just has the dates wrong, he'll say he didn't do it, she'll say he did it, and then what? Stalemate?

I wonder what are the chances his lawyer will say just give her 2 million to go away and admit no wrongdoing.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117775567#Comment_117775567

😯 Just looked it up. Had never heard about that before. (Which kinda proves your point.) And he bragged about it? In that context, his celebrity and status is difficult to fathom, alright. There is rock and roll excess and there are lines you don't cross.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117775570#Comment_117775570

Ask Roman Polanski what’s “plausible

El_Duderino 09

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117775570#Comment_117775570

How so? "over a six week period" is a very broad statement. It could mean every moment of every day for 6 weeks or i could mean anything down to as little as twice, 6 weeks apart. The first scenario is pretty much ruled out unless the girl travelled with BD. The second scenario is not ruled out at all by the timeline.

The fact that some people are ignoring the actual claim of " over a 6 week period" and misinterpreting it to mean "every day for 6 weeks", suggests they are not looking at it objectively and are instead looking for reasons to justify the prejudiced conclusion that he didn't do it (couldn't have done it).

Unless we know the details of the claim (and we don't) then we cant pretend the timeline tells us anything (unless the timeline demonstrated that they couldn't possibly have made contact during that period, which it doesn't)

Inquitus

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117775598#Comment_117775598

Paying her off is tantamount to an admission of guilt, in this day and age, I cant see Dylan doing that. We shall see, in probably a year or so!

El_Duderino 09

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117775577#Comment_117775577

Ok. If you want to prove a point then you could reinterpret it to mean the UK kicked him out. But why go OTT to make your point? You started off with the very reasonable position that we should wait for the investigation but since then you've moved to looking or any reason to suggest he likely didn't do it, up to and including exaggerating the claims about JLL because it seems to help your point. What's changed? Why not just admit we don't have a clue and wait for the investigation? This timeline stuff is a red herring, based entirely on changing the claim the woman is making.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117775630#Comment_117775630

No I haven’t - you’re the person who said society was more accepting of this behaviour in the past- they clearly weren’t

El_Duderino 09

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117775640#Comment_117775640

That is a claim that's demonstrably true. Jerry lee lewis was tut-tutted at for having sex with a 13 year old girl. Now he would be criminally charged.

What happened to just waiting for the investigation?

Strumms

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117775613#Comment_117775613

It happened so long ago, I wonder if she’s doing it now as Dylan being an 80 year old I doubt would whether innocent or guilty, relish a long drawn out court case, all that stuff in the media... and shes thinking to avoid all that would he be of the mind to cut a cheque.

Dave0301

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117775610#Comment_117775610

https://www.theguardian.com/music/2021/aug/19/bob-dylan-movements-not-inconsistent-with-alleged-sex-abuse-says-lawyer-for-accuser

Good summary of what you are saying here. The accuser and her lawyer seem confident that they still have a case despite the tour dates and Dylan's biographer claiming it was not possible. Either way, can see this being very difficult to prove for either side.

JC’s lawyer, Daniel Isaacs, has now responded to Heylin’s claims. “Looking at the [tour] schedule – it’s not inconsistent with our client’s claims,” he told Page Six. “There are dates that he wasn’t touring for several weeks in April and this will all come out at that appropriate time. The claims were vetted before the case was filed and we did our research. It’s our position that the evidence will establish that he was in New York during the relevant time period.”

El_Duderino 09

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117775736#Comment_117775736

This is it. It doesn't rule it in and it doesn't rule it out. Given the claim is "over a 6 week period" and not "every day for 6 weeks", the timeline is only relevant to someone who has concluded BD didn't do it and is looking for evidence to prove their prejudice.

The timeline is a red herring. We don't have any evidence at the moment.

Dave0301

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117775763#Comment_117775763

According to his biographer he left for London on April 26 and didn't return until June (no idea if accurate). Given the length of time involved and the possible lack of reliable evidence, an accusation of 6 weeks over April and May doesn't look great for the accuser. However, it is all just speculation. I am not au fait with the New York legal system, so not sure who gets to decide if there is a case or not?

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117775701#Comment_117775701

Also, there is a low barrier to entry when it comes to filing such cases in the U.S. And all sorts of claims are made as part of a case. Just hope the truth outs. Also waiting to see if more women come forward.

El_Duderino 09

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117775789#Comment_117775789

The Biographer's account is neither complete nor does it rule out the claims but the accuser. He doesn't claim to have a full account of BD's movements but makes the claim the "it's not possible". That's where things get dangerous. He can't make that claim without a big dollop of I-don't-want-it-to-be-true-so-I'll-say-it's-not-possible.

What on earth is so wrong with just admitting we don't actually have any evidence at this point in time and couldn't possibly rule the allegations in or out?

dogbert27

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117775736#Comment_117775736

So the lawyer is now looking at gaps in the schedule in April rather the the 6 week period over April and May

El_Duderino 09

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117775813#Comment_117775813

Not as far as we can see. Some people misinterpreted (intentionally or by accident) "over a 6 week period" to mean "every day for 6 weeks" and are now saying that she has changed her story. It's only difficult to understand if you're coming at it from a biased perspective.

An honest look at it makes it easy to understand and easy to see that the claim has not changed and the timeline has changed nothing.

Dave0301

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117775811#Comment_117775811

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117775813#Comment_117775813

Agree with both of you, and I agree that nothing can be ruled out. Was just thinking out loud that if he was not in the USA at all during May as claimed that the "6 week period over April and May" does not look robust. However, it is all speculation at this point and hypothetical.

Sorry if this has been answered, but is the "victim" looking for a cash compensation and not a conviction?

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117775763#Comment_117775763

https://iapps.courts.state.ny.us/nyscef/ViewDocument?docIndex=PCZoaLk/gBPFslAyJfbMAQ==

There's a link to the original Court filing, you can't construct "over a six week period" where Dylan is in New York in that time, afaik. At best you can get maybe a 2 week period in April. It's possible but undocumented that he flew back from the UK during the tour but it's really, really unlikely that that flight would be unrecorded by fans.

There's a very, very long thread on this on the main Dylan fan forum, expecting rain, where various other bits and pieces are posted, including hilariously, the fact that some of the Statement of Claim has been cut and pasted from wikipedia. https://expectingrain.com/discussions/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=101630

The timeline isn't really a "red herring" either, it's crucial to the allegation. The accuser is the one who put those dates forward, but those dates don't really stand to even flimsy scrutiny by online research.

tylercheribini

Jimmy Savile was never convicted in a court of law so I guess he was innocent too, innocent until proven guilty.

El_Duderino 09

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117775845#Comment_117775845

Quick question. Do you thin that "over a six week period" requires an entire, uninterrupted 6 weeks?

The accuser hasn't put specific dates forward. They only said 6 weeks over April and May. Unless the timeline rules out any individual dates over that entire 8 weeks, then it's a red herring.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117775869#Comment_117775869

No, I don't think it needs to be continuous but it does need Dylan to have made an undocumented flight back to New York, which is extremely unlikely.

dogbert27

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117775869#Comment_117775869

It's reported that he flew to the UK on April 26th and did not return to the US until June

This is also a factor:

Her lawsuit was submitted just ahead of a New York state deadline, authorized in a 2019 law, for people to file legal claims involving allegations of sexual abuse of children that in the past were too old to pursue due to a statute of limitations.

There were two weeks left for her to bring this case.

El_Duderino 09

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117775893#Comment_117775893

Who reported that? Is it the biographer?

dogbert27

If you google it's in every article about this case. Dylan's schedule had him flying out of Seattle airport on April 25th. His tour dates were to May 10th. He then did a studio session to May 12th. He then went to Portugal with Sarah Lownds. Dylan returned to the UK on May 24th and was admitted to hospital. Joan Baez said that it was here that she first saw Sarah Lownds and understood that her relationship with Dylan was over.

https://j99news.com/2021/08/17/bob-dylans-1965-schedule-calls-into-question-the-timeline-of-charges/

n the case, JC says that Dylan sexually assaulted her several times over the course of six weeks, in April and May 1965. Although the victim deserves to be heard and have her day in court, it is remarkable that it appears that Dylan hardly was in New York City during the two months. Looking at his 1965 concert schedule, Dylan arrived in California on March 27th to a concert in Santa Monica with Joan Baez, whom he was dating at the time. They made a short series of dates on the West Coast and ended up in Vancouver on April 9th.

Portugal, England and influenza

From 9th April until April 30th, Bob Dylan did not do any concerts and he may not have returned to New York. It has also been reported that he stayed in California with Sara Lownds, his lover who would eventually become his wife. What is probably documented is that Dylan, his band The Hawks, filmmaker DA Pennebaker and his crew and Lownds all arrived in England on April 26th, 1965 for the now legendary tour of England. This trip was documented by Pennebaker for the film Do not look back. A recording of the film, which is available on YouTube, shows Dylan and Baez leaving Seattle-Tacoma airport on April 25th for London. It is very possible that he never returned to New York after leaving in late March.

The English tour, famous for crowds bowing to Dylan to go electric, ran through May 10th, followed by a recording session in London on 12th May. Dylan and Lownds then traveled together to Portugal. Press reports from the time Dylan State returned to England on 24th May and was admitted to the hospital with an unknown illness. Dylan historians disagree on how much longer Dylan was in England, but it was probably at least well into June, returning to New York to begin recording his next album, Highway 61 revised, no later than 15th June.

El_Duderino 09

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117776013#Comment_117776013

Right. But it doesn't actually rule out the allegations. So unless we get any more details about the allegations, it's a complete red herring. And naturally, without any more details about the allegation, the case wouldn't have a hope of succeeding.

But at this stage the timeline is absolutely useless to anyone who is taking an unbiased look at the allegations and is only useful to someone who wants to prove their prejudiced conclusion that BD didn't do it.

bokale

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117775845#Comment_117775845

That's a great thread, mad how fans think they know someone. And seem to be so invested in them.

One guy reckons it may have been someone in Chelsea Hotel saying they were Dylan, and hopes it isn't the actual Bob Dylan that did it ha.

People are mad. We put way to many celebs on pedestals.

marklazarcovic

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117775602#Comment_117775602

anthony kiedis of red hot chilli peppers had a affair with a girl of 14,and admitted sleeping with her one last time before sending her home ,its in his book. its kinda mental how much this happens in all walks of society.

irelandrover

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117776058#Comment_117776058

I don't see how its a red herring. The claim is he groomed and assaulted her in April and May in New York. If it turns out he wasn't even in the USA during May that year then it definitely weakens her claim. I'm not saying it didn't happen but people are always going to discuss these cases based on the current knowledge. And based o the current talks their is holes in her story that raises doubts.

El_Duderino 09

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117776463#Comment_117776463

Sure but that's neither the claim she made nor is that ruled out by the claims of where he was during the time. That's why it's a red herring. If it turned out that he wasn't in the USA during April and May, then it would be relevant. But that's not what it shows, so why is it being used as evidence of anything? At this stage the claim doesn't rule out, or rule in, the allegation. So it's back to square 1.