Bob Dylan Sex Abuse Allegation

Considering the lawsuit gives a specific 6 week time period during one of the most scrutinised periods of Dylan's life where his movements can be, in the main, accounted for by biographers and scholars. I know these guys have vested interests in the whole affair but press reports from the time and tour dates/schedules would seem to poke holes in the case pretty easily. Like someone said, if it had been from the period after his motorbike accident where he retreated from public life, it would definitely have been a more plausible case.

Not trying to be an amateur internet sleuth on it and I'm not going to lose any sleep over it if it turns out he was a sexual predator.

Ah no it wasn't a dig specifically at you, I won't lose any sleep if he was a sexual predator either, I'd rather it wasn't the case simply because it'd be one less predator after damaging loves, but my point being precisely because it is one of the most recorded parts of his life that you'd think the accusers team has their ducks in a row, seems ludicrous that they'd make a claim, true or false, that could be debunked immediately.

christ , talk about making it all about your self and trying to provoke something 🙄

ignore

And you started this thread with the very reasonable position of waiting for the results of the investigation. Now you're making your own conclusions without even hearing the details of the accusation.

The sensible position remains to wait for the investigation and see if the claims are true or not. So far we have a vague accusation taking place over a 6 week period over 2 months (so 6 out of 8.5 weeks). There isn't even agreement on what "over a period of 6 weeks" means because the accuser hasn't revealed what exactly they mean.

We also have a biographer claim that he has a rough idea where BD was during that period and a documentary crew who, it is claimed, were filming some (we don't know how much) of his movements during that time.

An unbiased observer would admit they don't have enough evidence to even lean one way or the other. Do I believe the accuser's claim? No. I'd need to see what the claim is and see how it is investigated and substantiated. Do I believe the biographer's timeline? No. I'd need to see what the claim is and see how it is investigated and substantiated.

Anyone who is making conclusions or leaning heavily one way or the other, is doing so based purely on bias and prejudice. They're reaching the conclusion they started with. You've done this a number of times in the thread. You did it early on when you said you'd give him the benefit of the doubt because he's a powerful, influential artist who you like (not because everyone is innocent unless proved guilty). Now you're reaching the same conclusion based on the lawyer. Why even pretend you had any intention to wait for the evidence?

Of course you'll do what you want. I haven't suggested otherwise.

What changed since the other day when you started the thread and said you wanted to wait for the investigation?

Ah yeah but the speculating always seems to go the same way as the person's own bias. It's as clever as speculating that there's "no smoke without fire". A person taking an honest look at the situation will do neither. They will just wait for the investigation.

How can anyone say that with any certainty?

I'm a big fan so I'd like to think it was bullshit but who knows what went on all those years ago? And yes I agree we don't know enough yet so shouldn't make any conclusions.

I don't take that approach. Anyone can have an accusation made against them. We saw yesterday as evidence emerged in court about how Stephen Lennon (AKA Tommy Robinson) threatened to publicly call a journalists husband a paedo if she published a story about him.

Anyone can make an accusation for any reason including vengeance, profit and because its ture. We have no idea if its true so I go along with the accused being innocent unless proved guilty as a principle, not because I like his music.

If you give be benefit of innocence unless proved guilty ONLY because you like the accused, then you are legitimising people who presume hes guilty because he's been accused or because you DON'T like him or his music.

Somehow, waiting for the evidence before reaching s conclusion seems to be an ezmxtremist position

No no. The assumption is that he was in England the whole time. It has been claimed that there was a documentary crew (and the assumption is that they recorded him all the time so he couldn't possibly have been in NY) but hasn't been substantiated yet.

It may turn out to be true but that would require evidence, not just claims. If you believe claims without evidence then you'd have to believe the woman's claim too. But I suspect you're just believing the claims that lead to BD's innocence.

I'll just wait for the evidence instead of letting my prejudice dictate the conclusion.