Bob Dylan Sex Abuse Allegation

Time shouldnt matter when it comes for adults to say what happened to them as children. Our history in this country is proof of that.

But,

I'd wait for the court to investigate this to see what comes of it. I'd like to this this wouldnt be true, but who knows. From what I understand it's a civil not criminal case.

So is the allegation that he groomed her every day for 6 weeks or he groomed her over a 6 week period. It's important because they are different claims.

I've trouble remembering last month, never mind half a century ago!

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.

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.