Defend the indefensible - Bob Dylan.

(yes, a lawyer should definitely advise a client if they don't believe they have a case)

(when I wrote "they're not supposed to do that," I was referring to "just go go go go go")

I’m also finding suggestions that after buying his house in Woodstock, Dylan later “returned” to the Chelsea with Sara in Fall ’65 to write Blonde on Blonde.

This would mean he wasn’t living at the Chelsea (or in NYC at all) in April/May, but I’m just filling in the blanks. Maybe the Chelsea Hotel book from which that except is drawn (second link) has a more detailed accounting.

Brittanica.com says he “kept an apartment at the hotel from 1961 to 1964,” which tracks with the above (no citation though).

It sounds like at the very least the dates are wrong.

I don’t think I could personally deal with this being true. Not that that matters—the truth is the truth, and I and everyone would need to reevaluate Dylan if he was proven to be a child molester. But no other artist has meant as much to me—I would never have gotten interested in poetry if not for Dylan.

So yeah—I hope this can be resolved conclusively in one way or another

Of course, but at this point we'll just need to hear more evidence. I'm sorry I have to say this, but a brief complaint with inaccurate details isn't much to go on. I've already had two "oh shit" moments in the past year with Biden and Alexander Payne, and both of those complaints turned out to be completely false once they were put under thorough scrutiny.

if Dylan was out of the country during the dates in question, who was house sitting for him at the time?

Here's the first article I've seen to report on the timeframe questions:

Dylan fans online have been quick to point out that the stated timeline in the lawsuit appears to be at odds with his schedule during that period. In April and May of 1965, Dylan was on tour in England followed by a vacation in Portugal. J.C.'s lawyer tells NPR that the dates of those events "are not inconsistent" with what his client alleges.

So, whatever it means, they're sticking with the April/May 1965 dates.

That seems like a bad move to me. "I was on the other side of the continent/a different continent performing in front of thousands of fans and here is video from half that period" seems to be a good defense.

I assumed the plaintiff would try amend the complaint to state a different (earlier) time period - Amending the complaint poses it's own problems, since the Child Victims Act that amended the statute of limitations to allow abuse cases like the one against Dylan expired the day after the suit was filed and plaintiff would need permission from the judge to amend. The judge would probably grant this, but who knows.

Regardless, looking forward to the jury having to watch all of "Don't Look Back" during the trial.

I've seen speculation online that (if the allegations have truth to them) perhaps the girl was traveling as part of Dylan's coterie. But then you would think there would be other people aware, one way or another.

hey birdistheword fuck you

considering everything we know about 60s rock stars this is far more believable than not but I'm dreading how much worse the backlash is likely to get

Left, if there is pretty substantial contemporary video, documentary, and other evidence that Dylan was not in NY during April-May 1965, would you say that a jury should believe the presumed testimony that contradicts that evidence?

I'm not saying it couldn't have happened, but it apparently have happened when and where alleged in the Complaint, which was why I anticipated it would be amended to state a different time.

apparently could not have

Hey Left, fuck you too!

Dylan biographer is skeptical:

Heylin said he can’t figure out when any meetings between Dylan and the accuser could have taken place.

“It’s not possible. Dylan was touring England during that time, and was in Los Angeles for two of those weeks, plus a day or two at Woodstock,” in upstate New York, Heylin told HuffPost. “The tour was 10 days, but Bob flew into London on April 26 and arrived back in New York on June 3.”

“If Dylan was in New York in mid-April, it was for no more than a day or two,” he added. “Woodstock was where he spent most of his time when not touring. And if he was in NYC, he invariably stayed at his manager’s apartment in Gramercy, not the Chelsea.”

Heylin also said the singer didn’t start living at the Chelsea Hotel until autumn of that year.

oh the dylan biographer clearly not invested any particular interpretation of events here

ignoring the shit about what the legal system should or would do except to point out that the carceral logic here works as well to absolve certain people as it does to condemn others

"everything we know about 60s rock stars" -- lol, what disingenuous bullshit this is (unsurprising considering the source)

birdistheword is otm

Left: do you believe it is possible that Dylan did not do this?

for decades rock stars have literally been celebrated for openly raping children and the same people are seen as beloved martyrs or elder statesmen today. these are the most egregious and least secretive ones. this was and is the culture

not entertaining the rest of this apologist bs. gross but preditable display

No one is apologizing you dolt.

OK I'll bite with this one: I believe dylan did this. uninterested in answering that question specifically

to treeship

OK I'll bite with this one: I believe dylan did this. uninterested in answering that question specifically

― Left, Tuesday, August 17, 2021

To be as polite as possible, why then post on this thread if this is your position?

I tend to believe this generation of male artists is more likely guilty of criminal sexual behavior without my adjudicating on guilt.

I wasn't going to until seeing the familiar playbook being employed so readily pissed me off enough

also frankly the biden thing. that's not dylan's fault exactly

Of course it is

The familiar playbook of pointing out the mountain of documentation of his whereabouts during the specific alleged dates.

(I don’t agree that the Biden allegation was thoroughly disproven though)

The idea that Dylan could not have done this because he is a great songwriter is pure ideology.

The idea that Dylan very likely did this because other rock musicians of his generation exploited minors is also pure ideology.

Each case needs to be considered on its own merits. There is not enough information now to determine what is going on with this lawsuit.

There is not enough information now to determine what is going on with this lawsuit.

― treeship., Tuesday, August 17, 2021 8:57 PM (sixteen minutes ago) bookmarkflaglink

Yes 100%, belief and knowledge are two different things. No one knows what happened really. However it's okay to have beliefs, as long as you respect others.

More of Peter J. Gleason’s weird litigation history: https://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/ny-metro-reality-tv-private-eye-20181029-story.html

I’m pretty sure the other lawyer, Daniel W. Isaacs, is former Chairman & CEO of the New York Republican County Committee.

so to answer my earlier question, no they wouldn't tell a client if they had a loser case

this guy

Here’s a lot more on Gleason

Maybe he and Isaacs are GOP buds:

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/E88t9VPVcAshaij?format=jpg&name=small

New statement by Isaacs (to Daily Mail):

The complaint and allegations were thoroughly vetted and factual details were provided by our client.

There's all sort of things we found that back up her claims, on the internet, various sources and blogs and all that. A lot of research went into this. We'll prove our case in a court of law.

There's all

lawyer penalty: -3 points

"on the internet, various sources and blogs and all that"

It's fascinating that Isaacs cites those same public sources everyone else is looking at. Even accounting for time gaps when Dylan could theoretically have returned to NYC, no one seems to have found anything definitively placing him there, let alone anything involving a girl (either in NYC or traveling with him).

That statement gives me some Jacob Wohl vibes.

As we all know, information sourced from blogs and "the internet" is irrefutable and almost certainly wouldn't be among the first things the defence counsel rips to shreds in presenting their case.

Honestly, if the allegations weren't so serious it would be hilarious. The statement above was pure Lionel Hutz.

It seems like the lawyer — at least — is a skeeveball and the timeline — at least — doesn’t add up. Is it ok to say that, if this is just some stunt, then it is very unfortunate that Dylan has had his name linked with child molestation in the popular imagination? Or are we not supposed to take that into account?

Again, who knows what information the client put before the lawyer. Maybe this is a stronger case than it seems. But if so, this is a bad lawyer.

just to be clear, i'm very much in the "wait for more info" camp. it doesn't appear to be a strong case. the lawyer seems dumb, but so do a lot of lawyers. you can be an extremely dumb lawyer and make it to the top of your field. you can even run for president or land on the supreme court, it doesn't fucking matter. maybe it never did.

but i'm not going to be in the captain save a bob camp and freak out either. we don't know anything yet. bob dylan attended roughly 134014 parties in the 1960s, and this was during a time when virtually all rock bands and singers were talking about having the hots for teenagers. who knows what the fuck he did.

Aye, the entire range of possibilities is there, from "totally made up" to "totally true" with a ton of other scenarios between. On the surface it looks and sounds like a shakedown where someone's hoping for nuisance money, if you broaden this from sex-abuse allegations to complaints filed 55 years after the fact about behavior by rich people in general. But we don't have to make any assumptions, it can play out or evaporate as it will.