Bob Dylan Sex Abuse Allegation

El_Duderino 09

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117784891#Comment_117784891

I got half way through this post before I noticed you changed my standard from "evidence" to "proof". I have to used the term proof once.

Isn't it incredible that it's being seen as ridiculous to wait for the evidence before reaching a conclusion? It shows the power of bias and prejudice. Even challenging the bias the BD couldn't have don't it and waiting for evidence is being seen as some kind of extremists position.

I'll just wait for the evidence.

Ps how did you find out about me being a collective of cats?

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117787776#Comment_117787776

hang on now. When a documentary is made it involves lots of different people and produces a record of the event. it’s not something easily forgotten or manufactured years later. You seem to be the only person anywhere who is doubting this and that’s hardly “waiting for the evidence” but rather dismissing clear evidence. You need extraordinary proof to dismiss literal documentary evidence,

thats not open mindedness, it’s prejudice.

i may be missing something though, is there some new reason to believe the documentary was faked?

El_Duderino 09

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117787888#Comment_117787888

Ah no. Its been claimed that the documentary proves he was in London the whole time. But does it? I haven't seen anyone who was involved in the documentary who says they filmed every single day and they can demonstrate BD was in the UK the whole time.

That's the kind of thing that will be examined in the investigation and trial. As yet, all we have is a claim that the documentary exonerates him. You're presuming the claim will be substantiated by evidence at some time in the future. I'm just waiting for the evidence.

El_Duderino 09

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117787902#Comment_117787902

I don't think anyone has made thst claim. Have they?

There is a documentary and its being claimed that it exhonerates BD. But that remains to be seen. They might have filmed a few days over the period of his trip to england (concert days only, for example), or they might have filmed extensively every day. Either would be sufficient to stitch it together and make a documentary but we don't know yet. The documentary footage/testimony by crew, might completely exonerate him, but so far all we have is the claim that a documentary was made and and it exhonerates him.

osarusan

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117787230#Comment_117787230

"No an unbiased observer wouldn’t come to the conclusions you are coming to. The burden of proof is on the prosecution."

I don't see how an unbiased observer can come to any conclusions, seeing as we don't know exactly what the claims being made are, and we are not privy to the evidence which will be offered in support of these claims.

The burden of proof is indeed on the prosecution, but we don't know what they will try to prove, and how they will try to prove it.

Dave0301

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117788017#Comment_117788017

Yes, this is pretty much were we are at.

The claims that Dylan was not in New York during May if proven to be true could well weaken the prosecution, but we don't know that for a fact until we see more details about the case they put forward.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117787990#Comment_117787990

The main point is that he was in England while the abuse was claimed to be in New York.

Also since concerts are well documented it’s fairly certain he was in California in most of not all of April.

https://www.setlist.fm/search?page=6&query=bob+dylan+1965

85603

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117787317#Comment_117787317

Within 20 mins 90% of the people who read this thread will have forgotten the accusers name, and nobody here could recognize her if she walked past them today, wearing a Bob Dylan hat.

Dylan however will be hearing about it for the rest of his days. Guilty or innocent.

85603

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117787776#Comment_117787776

You know you can wait for evidence without knowing the accuseds name.

You could just call him man x.

Potentially sparing any unnecessary trauma to an innocent person.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117788017#Comment_117788017

According to the lawsuit the abuse was in NYC for 6 weeks between April and May ‘65

The lawsuit alleges that the Times They Are A-Changin’ singer “befriended and established an emotional connection with the plaintiff”, identified in Manhattan supreme court papers, obtained by the Guardian, only as “JC” and groomed her over the course of six weeks in April and May 1965.

From the guardian :

https://www.theguardian.com/music/2021/aug/16/bob-dylan-accusations-sexual-abuse-lawsuit

Galwayguy35

Bill Wyman is probably hoping Mandy Smith never decides to spill the beans

Strumms

a weird story...

there wont be...CCTV, forensic / trace evidence, credible witnesses.... how would a judge find in her favor ? Screaming of her just looking for a payoff off an 80 year old dude 56 years later after an alleged meeting.

you can’t just find against somebody having been accused of this because they met them, were in the same location for X time. Be like me being accused of breaking a red light back in 2005.... “ well you WERE on the road, AROUND then, sure here is 3 points “

the burden of proof is of the accuser.

so id think that unless the judge is on Ketamine, Bob will be alright.

osarusan

Not really though, it doesn't say 'for six weeks', it says 'over the course of six weeks' so we don't know what that really means in terms of when specifically the grooming/abuse is alleged to have happened, or how often, other than there will be six weeks from the start to the end of whatever is claimed.

This is what I meant when I said that we don't really know much about all about the specific claims which will be made, and what evidence will be offered to support them.

Unless the lawsuit is withdrawn or settled, it'll all come out in court and we'll hear the claims and evidence then.

El_Duderino 09

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117788017#Comment_117788017

This is it. We don't know the details of the accusation or what evidence they have to substantiate their claims. Nor do we have the evidence of the claim that he wasn't in NY the whole of May. So the only honest thing to do is acknowledge that there are claims and counter claims and wait for the evidence.

El_Duderino 09

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117788097#Comment_117788097

I've no idea why you're asking me this. I agree. I think the Irish system of affording anonymity to everyone involved, is better.

El_Duderino 09

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117788062#Comment_117788062

Those are claims alright. But they would need evidence to substantiate.

His biographer doesn't agree that he was in "California for most if not all of April". He claims he was in New York state for some of that time and he's not sure if he was there for a day or more. So the claims that it couldn't have happened in April are in need of evidence. So you've jumped the gun with that point.

But yoyve got it all wrong anyway, the onus is on the accuser to substantiate their claims. Why not even wait for them to do that before making up your mind?

dePeatrick

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117771285#Comment_117771285

That says a lot more about you than it says about musicians!

El_Duderino 09

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117788047#Comment_117788047

And now the defence (or the Chrome Columbos who think they're investigating on BD's behalf) are claiming he wasn't in NY and creating a burden of proof that BD wasn't in NY. Why shift the burden of proof to BD in haste to declare him innocent?

The burden of proof is with the accuser so let's just wait to see if they can substantiate their claims or not.

85603

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117788285#Comment_117788285

Because on page 7 you disagreed with me when I said that inside of court such cases should have anonymity and the press should be restricted for them.

You were saying something about a different approach (iirc) but as another boardsie put it 'your posts are generated by 5 cats' or similar. I can't imagine what that different approach may be, as far as I can see it you either have court anonymity and press restrictions or you don't.

El_Duderino 09

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117788408#Comment_117788408

Where did I say different? Could you quote it?

I disagreed with your approach that the accused name is tarnished because I don't subscribe to the "No smoke without fire" approach nor the approach of exhonerating the accused without even hearing the details of the accusation or the evidence they claim substantiated it.

I take what appears to be a radical approach in this thread of adhering to innocence unless proved guilty. The ase should be investigsted, the prosecution should make its case and then we will be in a position to decide on the likely guilt or innocence of the accused.

Innocent until proved guilty doesn't mean assuming the allegation is bullsh1t before even hearing the details of it. It just means not jumping to the conclusion that he's guilty and also waiting for the evidence.

This is very simple stuff

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117788360#Comment_117788360

cut the ad hominems

What a strange arse over tit logic you engage in. You want to wait for the “evidence” but until then the guilt or not of BD is exempt from discussion.

However evidence doesn’t mean something definitely proven in court; if websites document a number of concerts in California and those concerts have numerous records including financial records, flyers, reviews, still alive witnesses, professional and private photographs (as they all do) then its definitive evidence.

behind all the pseudo rationality here is a story as old as time - the story of the mob, the idea that there’s no smoke without fire, that names can be blackened without recourse.

El_Duderino 09

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117788440#Comment_117788440

This is where you're going wrong. You're assuming the burden of proof on BD's behalf by trying to prove he couldn't have done it before even knowing what the details of the accusations are and how they plan to evidence it.

BD didn't have concerts every day, and you don't know what the details of the prosecutions case will be. So instead of playing the defence case on their behalf. Maybe do what I'm doing and wait for the investigation and the evidence before jumping to conclusions?

85603

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117788439#Comment_117788439

You can read on page 7 that you disagreed with my post suggesting that anonymity and media restrictions be used.

Regarding your suggestion that the name of the accused isn't tarnished, well thats just ridiculous, of course your name is tarnished if you're in the paper as the accused in a juicy sensationalist SEX crime.

You may have some simple point to make but you're not doing a very good job of it.

OMM 0000

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117788319#Comment_117788319

Well we know pedophile priests chose that job to be near kids, same with pedophile scout leaders, and so on.

A lot of people are motivated by sex.

It's no secret a lot of musicians sleep around like crazy, and it's no secret young, naive women are attracted to musicians.

El_Duderino 09

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117788736#Comment_117788736

You made a lot of claims in that post. I told you I don't consider BD's name tarnished because I don't jump to conclusions and I adhere to the principle of innocence unless proved guilty.

If you justify jumping to the conclusion that he's innocent without evidence then you're on the same footing as "No smoke without fire". I disagree with your approach. I will just wait for the evidence.

So yo reiterate my point from page 7, I don't consider the accused to be tarnished because I don't jump to conclusions. And to expand on the point from page 7, I prefer the Irish system where the accused is not named unless found guilty.

Beechwoodspark

I often thought the sixties music scene was pure and utter dodgy as Fcuk

so...yeah...for now....reserving judgment until I hear what sort of proof the accuser has

85603

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117788917#Comment_117788917

But he is tarnished now. His name is in the paper in connection with a sex crime. Would you want your name in the papers as the accused in a sex crime?

It doesn't matter if you don't jump to conclusions, a million nutcases out there do. There are all sorts out there waiting to be the hero who bashed the (assumed) nonce and got their 15 minutes of fame.

Or for a grifter to jump on board the case for a possible pay-day, which makes it more probable for a third, and a forth and so on. Then its 'oh well he had 20 accusations I mean with that many...'. More plaintiffs make for a more probable payoff, which makes for more plaintiffs and so on.

All of that drama disappears if you just refer to the defendant as man X. Theres no upside to naming him (or her), there are however considerable possible downsides.

El_Duderino 09

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117789053#Comment_117789053

Yeah some people will jump to conclusions one way or the other. That's not my approach, of course. But the ones who are jumping to onclusions that he's guilty or innocent, are 2 cheeks of the same arse as they are both operating without evidence. I will just wait for the evidence and I suggest you do likewise.

It's funny that you mention " 'oh well he had 20 accusations I mean with that many...'", because lots of people have sited the lack of cases against him as evidence of his innocence. If a lack of cases is evidence of his innocence then an abundance of cases is evidence of his guilt even though you suggested they could be nothing more than copycats. That's why I'd sugget just taking the evidence on its own merit rather than jumping the gun.

If you legitimise jumping to the conclusion that he's innocent without evidence then you legitimise the approach of jumping to the conclusion that he's guilty without evidence and tarnishing the name of someone who has only been accused and hasn't actually been found guilty of anything at this point. That's why I'll just wait for the evidence.

So will you join me in waiting for evidence or do you favour jumping to conclusions without evidence?

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117788589#Comment_117788589

1) we know the gist of the lawsuit. That’s in the public domain. 6 weeks in a April and May in 65.

2) I didn’t say he had concerts everyday. However flying back to NYC between concerts wouldn’t make sense, particularly in 1965. The expense would be far more than staying there.

3) you are not “waiting for the investigation” There is no investigation. It’s a lawsuit. Not a criminal case.

here it is by the way.

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

of course we can discuss the lawsuit. It’s making a claim re dates that we can check and discuss. What other evidence is presented is unknown and this case is unlikely to go to court.

I don’t think you actually did any research on the actual lawsuit or the possibility of the dates, stuck your oar in to arguing for the lawsuit and are now flailing about trying to bend logic to your position.