Bob Dylan Sex Abuse Allegation

El_Duderino 09

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117789358#Comment_117789358

You know the gist of the claim, but none of the evidence for the claim. Don't you think that's important?

So we knoe he had concerts some days and could have flown back to NY in-between concerts. So nobody had ruled out that he flew back to NY so the argument that the concert dates exhonerates him is untrue. So we're back to square 1 without more actual evidence.

Maybe when they combine the concert dates with the documentary footage and interviews and whatever else, they will be able to demonstrate he wasn't in NY or never came in contact with the accuser, or something else that would exonerate him, but that evidence hasn't been provided (no evidence has been provided yet because there's no need to provide evidence yet).

So, I'll just wait for the evidence instead of making a leap of faith that evidence will be provided at some point in the future for either side.

The number of times in this thread that posters have made claims to the effectb that the timeline exhonerates him, is truly astonishing. Its a pretty Mssive leap of faith given that the timeline doesn't appear to do that at all. It only accounts for some of his days at concerts with lots of gaps in between. BD's legal team might have great evidence of his being in England the whole time, but they haven't made that information, or any other information, public yet ( no need to do so). So all we can reasonably do is wait for the evidence.

85603

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117789324#Comment_117789324

Wow is that a slippery weasel response.

Heres a simple, direct question to clear this right up. Do you think Dylans name should be in the paper at this point where there has been no evidence for/against him?

Yes or no.

El_Duderino 09

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117789547#Comment_117789547

No. I've said that loads of times. Any time I've addressed that question that has been my response. I also elaborated by saying I prefer the Irish system where they accused would have the right to remain anonymous unless found guilty.

As for my question which you didn't address: So will you join me in waiting for evidence or do you favour jumping to conclusions without evidence?

Beechwoodspark

I’d say the rumour would have spread even if Dylan hadn’t been specifically named

El_Duderino 09

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117789625#Comment_117789625

Almost certainly. Its likely that someone would have sold a story to the tabliods. But that's not really the point. People shouldn't be named unless found guilty.

Lots of people aren't able to wait for evidence. Just look at how many people have jumped to a conclusions of innocence in this case. Theyre willing to take a leap of faith that there will be evidence for the timeline exhonerating the defendant.

If those people disliked the defendant they could as simpley have faith in the defendant's guilt without evidence.

I can wait for evidence without reaching a conclusion, so BD's name is safe with me. But looking at this thread shows how loads of people are capable of jumping to conclusions without any evidence. Scary or what?

85603

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117789601#Comment_117789601

"I don't take that approach".

You said this in reference to a post I made saying that names in such cases should be kept anonymous in court, and that media should be restricted.

And now you say you agree.

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

Of course wait on the evidence. This was never even an issue.

Like the other guy said, a collective of cats round a keyboard. Put the pipe down.

El_Duderino 09

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117789661#Comment_117789661

You said more than one thing in that post. I responded that I don't take your approach of tarnishing the name of a defendant because I (personally) adhere to the presumption of innocence unless proved guilty.

You misunderstood and I've already explsined which part of your post I was responding to. I'm not sure why you keep doubling down on it.

Just to reiterate (again because it doesn't seem to be sinking in), I prefer the Irish system of affording the defendant the right to remain anonymous unless found guilty.

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

85603

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117789700#Comment_117789700

In response to your question, look up one post. And you'll see the following "Of course wait on the evidence."

Now then. With that blatant red herring out of the way. Please go ahead and gather round your keyboard and highlight exactly where we differ on the following post. And I quote ...

"All such accusations in court should be kept anonymous. With press restricted.

As it stands the name of the accused is now smeared. Even though theres been no evidence of wrongdoing.

And theres zero consequences for the accuser.

Meaning you can just damage someone for the lulz, and the system will back you up.

Dylan is worse off today than yesterday, and no proof has been presented.

Therefore his govt has failed him."

[I don't take that approach : You]

So which part precisely do we diverge on?

El_Duderino 09

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117789764#Comment_117789764

I was responding only to the second clause of the post - I don't take the approach of tarnishing the defendant's name. I start with the presumption of innocence and I wait for evidence. That's what I don't take the approach of smearing the defendant's name just because they're been accused of a crime. Simple enough really.

So since you're waiting for evidence, what do you think about the claims about the timeline exhonerating BD?

85603

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117789796#Comment_117789796

"I don't take the approach of tarnishing the defendant's name."

So then you're not taking a different approach. Christ.

"what do you think about the claims about the timeline exhonerating BD?"

I've no opinion of it, I know nothing about it, its an issue that I never referred to.

What do you think about balls of wool and catnip?

El_Duderino 09

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117790006#Comment_117790006

OK. Thanks for answering the question.

85603

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117790054#Comment_117790054

Pathetic.

El_Duderino 09

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117790096#Comment_117790096

I think you e got the wrong end of the stick here. What do you want me to say? You answered my question and I showed my appreciation.

Probably no need to get cross.

85603

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117790113#Comment_117790113

All ends of the stick were wrong. Your post was some ambiguous nonsense. By which I mean your post wasn't some ambiguous nonsense. Because I take a different approach which is the same. Its perfectly simple. Your post was ambiguous nonsense. Thats the point I'm not making.

El_Duderino 09

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117790163#Comment_117790163

Lol. You said his name was tarnished and I said I don't take that approach because I'll wait for the evidence. Its not hard to understand.

85603

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117790247#Comment_117790247

Of course his name is tarnished. He's in the newspaper as the defendant in a sex crime.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117790282#Comment_117790282

You are arguing with a bunch of cats here man, why bother?

85603

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117790435#Comment_117790435

I suppose the crux of the whole back and forth was how the reader understands a particular response. I was talking about the court system, E.D. was seemingly talking about personal preferences/practices. Nothingburger really, pain in the hole going over it now.

Hermy

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

Fair point.

However, lots of commenters here are saying that she's only in it for the money despite the fact that (as you rightly point out) most wouldn't recognise her if they passed her in the street.

And I'm sure that's a sentiment that's being repeated across all social media platforms and may potentially lead to her being harassed regardless of the veracity or otherwise of her accusation.

So I wouldn't say there are zero consequences for her.

head82

Just when you thought this case couldn't get any more bizarre. Make of this what you will:

https://www.zeusnewsnow.com/

El_Duderino 09

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117790472#Comment_117790472

Now you've got it, it was worth explaining it all those times. Yes, you made something out of nothing, but you understood in the end so all's well that ends well.

3DataModem

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117769633#Comment_117769633

Hiding 7 good songs in 39 albums.

@head82

@head82 so alleged victim named - I see she’s also claiming to be the girl in a photograph taken late 1965 with Dylan at some nightclub or other.

I’ll stand by my gut feeling on this one - the more those lawyers open their mouths the less I will believe

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117796751#Comment_117796751

This the photo of Bob and a woman who looks to be black? Bizarre and sad story of someone's probable mental illness, imo, as the accuser is a white woman.

head82

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117796751#Comment_117796751

Agreed! And take a closer look at that nightclub photo. The girl in question appears to be of the 'coloured' persuasion.

The accuser and her representatives would have some job trying to reconcile that!

Almost wishing this case does go to trial.. just for the laugh!

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117796768#Comment_117796768

With an added IRS problem of back taxes. While the mainstream media did report this on day 1 which gave the story a hell of a lot of legitimacy I don’t think you’ll see the cancel culture crowd out in force quite yet if at all, over Bob.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117796792#Comment_117796792

Not to go all "bag of cats" on it, the allegations could of course still be true but yeah a psychic with tax troubles who has previously claimed to be a black woman in a photo with Bob comes across as someone who might have credibility issues.

On the other hand, not sure it was the right thing for a super fan to dox her. If she's being honest in her claims she deserves anonymity, and if she's lying she's probably seriously mentally unwell.

Sleepy

Wait for it, the tour dates won't be an issue... I'd lay 10/1 she's going to claim she was abused psychically 🤣

This is what happens when a country doesn't have proper healthcare.

head82

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117796809#Comment_117796809

Mental health issues might very well be a factor here. If that's the case, you'd tend to think that someone on her legal team would identify this and opt not to proceed with the allegations.

They can't all be mentally unwell... can they?

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117796948#Comment_117796948

The lawyers can't just assume she's as mad as a box of frogs though, and even if she is, her allegations could still be true. it's a hard call for them but these guys don't come across as competent in any event.

Dylan's lawyers are probably hiring investigators to find out where she was in school in 1965, did she miss the relevant weeks etc. Possibly tracking down old school friends, relatives who'll discuss any breakdowns etc. It takes a lot of money to investigate something this old, Dylan has it, her lawyers probably don't so they ran with it assuming if it was true Dylan would have thrown money at it to get it to go away (which he could have done, very easily).