Bob Dylan Sex Abuse Allegation

Is this named woman definitely the accuser and not some randomer claiming to be her? If it is her then it certainly confirms my suspicion that the whole thing is bullshit.

In one of his standup shows Dara O'Briain has a bit about an item on psychics on BBC's Watchdog:

• My favourite thing about it was the item had a headline, The item was titled "Bogus psychic scam", As if there's any other kind of psychic, As if you could have finished it with a real psychic going, "Well on behalf of genuine psychics I'd just like to say we're very angry about this. *mimes someone listening for the voices in their head* And so are the dead.

Yeah I've heard the biographer claims he wasn't in New York City during that time. He claims he spent a day or 2 in New york state, for example, so we're not pretending this guy has a documented detailed schedule or that he's sure on BD's whereabouts. And the biographer making a claim is interesting, but we hardly believe claims just because someone makes it. Otherwise we'd have to believe the accuser's claims because they made them and we'd have to believe contradictory claims. So I'll just acknowledge the claim and wait for evidence to substantiate the claim before I'd believe it.

Likewise, the claim has been made that the documentary crew followed him all the time during the period, but I don't think that's necessarily how tv works. They might or might not have been filming every day. That's something which could probably be cleared up pretty quickly so I'll wait for the evidence on that claim too.

How do you handle the claims? How do you figure out which things to believe or not?

So you're accepting the claims that the documentary crew followed him all the time or that he couldn't possibly have been in the US during the period? How did you determine that those claims are true? I suppose that's the question I'm asking? I know what I'll do which is wait and see if evidence emerges to substantiate those claims.

It's also interesting that you have accepted the claim that he wasn't in the USA while dismissing the biographers claim that he was in the use and was only a few hours away from NY City in NY state for a day or 2 (he's not sure). How did you determine that he was in Europe and the Biographer is wrong that he was in the USA?

I'm not dismissing any claims made by the biographers. The lawsuit claims he groomed the 12 year old over six weeks in April and May 1965 - If you can find a six week period in those two months that makes sense based on his touring schedule, let me know.

Ah, so are you interpreting "over six weeks in April and May" to mean a continuous period of 6 weeks over those 2 months?

I think the term "over six weeks in April and May" could mean as few as 2 times 6 weeks apart, or 3 times spanning 6 weeks. But we don't have any more information so it's hard to know what they mean. How did you determine what they mean by "over six weeks in April and May"

ah sure we'll just find him guilty then.

Sad to see someone who would take that approach. But you see the same approach being taken by loads of people in this thread who have decided he didn't do it because they like his music and don't want it to be true. It's the same impulse just working in the other direction.

I think the best approach is to just treat it as a claim and wait for evidence before deciding it it's likely true or likely not true.

I'm saying any six weeks. If you can find any six weeks in those two months where he was definitely in New York, let me know.

Read what I said. I said any six weeks in that two month period. With six weeks out of nine, some of it's bound to be continuous.

I don't think anyone thinks it occurred for 6 continuous weeks. You keep bringing that up but no-one has claimed it. Considering what is proven about his timeline its impossible he was in New York for 6 continuous weeks.

There's definite issues that raise doubts in the claim. I know you're just going to state we don't know for definite yet but the fact is that Bob Dylan was heavily followed during this time. If he had made a trip back to New York it most likely would have come out. Especially now with this case in the public if he was seen in New York or the US in that time someone would be talking about it.

The Claim was that he groomed and abused her over a 6 week period. When the issues with the timeline came out this was the statement from the lawyer. "There are dates that he wasn’t touring for several weeks in April and this will all come out at that appropriate time,” Isaacs told Page Six. “The claims were vetted before the case was filed and we did our research."

To me this looks like they mentioned six weeks over April and May and when the timeline came out they start focusing on April only. If this occurred in the first 3 weeks of April when he was in the US then why ever mention 6 week or May?

The poster I was responding to specifically asked if there is a 6week period in the 9 weeks of April and May. So I've asked them what their understanding is but I've had no luck getting them to explain their understanding. I think they think it requires 6 straight weeks or chunks of time that add up to 6 weeks. Otherwise, why are they asking?

There is a claim that BD was followed and filmed all the time during April and May, and if that's true then it should be straightforward to exhonerate him. But the time to believe that is after the evidence has been produced, not now when all we have is the claim.

In the meantime, it's not BD's job to prove his whereabouts all the time during April and May (and he hasn't done so). It's the prosecution's job to substantiate their claims that they've made. In their haste to prove their biased conclusions, some people have adopted a burden of proof that they can account for all his movements because of the documentary and the gigs and whatever else and they are acting in faith that the evidence will come later. But that's all beside the point because it's the prosecution's job to substantiate their claims.

I remember reading in a book of Rock quotes many years ago, the retort of Bianca Jagger (I think) to a man who claimed they'd "had an affair".

"Maybe we did. But you can't have been much good because I don't remember you at all!"