Defend the indefensible - Bob Dylan.

I mean, yeah, they’re both awesome! (is that not their rep?)

I kind of thought they were supposed to be critically considered some of Dylan's worst records.

To be fair, I did not sit and read the lyrics. It is not some of Bob's clearest diction on some of the tunes too.

I always the Xtian themes were not appreciated at the time and the music a bit of a mash.

There are definitely some Dylan tunes with backing vocal treatments that get weird, but I thought the backing vocals on these were pretty good.

It's probably the production era, but the music was a bit more rocked up guitar wise. I guess that is Fred Tackett playing some of those leads.

their rep is that they're a terrible joke. I even have a christian friend who's a dylan fan who thinks that. truth is they RULE quite hard.

so many Bob Dylan threads, thought I'd post this one in the thread that had the most appropriate subject line for the situation

https://www.tmz.com/2021/08/16/bob-dylan-sued-sexual-abuse-assault-groomed-sex-12-year-old-girl-1965/

Very brave to charge after 56 years, I cannot imagine the pain it must have been during all these years.

Flagged

Oh god I read that as being sarcastic sorry.

I'm surprised this isn't a bigger story - at least not on my social media TLs, don't know about any of yours but no one seems to be talking about it here so I guess it's not just me?

is it everything else going on in the world? I saw some people who were actually talking about it bring up some evidence via his touring history or something that he couldn't have done it? idk

uh idk it's all over my Twitter feed

it's also a story that broke at night

Dud

Have you heard his version of "Vogue," map?

evidence via his touring history or something that he couldn't have done it? idk

The complaint says the abuse happened btw. April & May 1965. Looks like Dylan was on the West Coast for chunks of April, and then the UK through at least May 12. That timeline doesn’t rule it out, I guess. It’s a pretty extraordinary claim. Beyond the allegations in the complaint and the denial by Dylan’s team, nothing else really to go on at the moment (unless similar allegations have surfaced in the past to support it).

Thanks for that info. Twitter seems to have decided to restrict access so I can no longer read through Twitter threads without logging into an account.

I just did my own digging now; others may know or have found more.

I'm generally seeing it everywhere. For comparison's sake, Sting was sued for statutory rape months ago, and I didn't see it nearly as much.

I'm not seeing too much gossip or immediate presumptions of either guilt or blackmail, which is probably for the best. Dylan could very well be guilty, but for many reasons it will be extraordinary if these allegations can be proven - as mentioned, this was a time when he was very visible, incredibly active professionally and publicly, and his day-to-day activities were pretty much tracked by obsessive fans.

Also forgot, he was followed and filmed for Dont Look Back around this time, especially during May.

I had the impression that he had 15 people and a camera crew in the room with him 24 hours a day in 1965.

He didn't enjoy much privacy, that's for sure. Again, a pretty extraordinary claim, but I guess we'll see how it plays out

Twitter seems to have decided to restrict access so I can no longer read through Twitter threads without logging into an account.

this was happening to me too - clearing my Twitter cookies fixed it for me

This is starting to look highly implausible. The complaint says this took place over the course of six weeks in NYC between April and May 1965. Problem is, Dylan was touring - besides the West Coast, he was in the UK and Europe from the end of April through May, and as mentioned, was being filmed too. This is pretty well-documented, public information which makes it especially bizarre, so unless the accuser got the dates wrong - and it's pretty stunning if her attorney didn't bother to look into those dates - I can't see how this can be proven in court.

Actually it really is impossible for those dates to be correct - Dylan was in the Pacific NW performing from late March to late April and flew directly to London from Seattle-Tacoma International Airport. His UK tour finished on May 10, then travelled to Portugal with Sara where they stayed until the end of the month. He was then in London on June 1, recording at the BBC, and flew back to the US on June 2.

Where are you finding these detailed itineraries?

Ah, here’s a Twitter thread:

In March 1965, Bob Dylan had left his home in Woodstock for an American concert tour with Joan Baez. 1/5 pic.twitter.com/AswpV0RN3v

— Anne Margaret Daniel (@venetianblonde) August 16, 2021

Not every citation in that thread is backed up with screenshot receipts, but the clippings do convincingly document that he traveled to Portugal after the UK tour, and then returned to London (where he spent time in the hospital).

as for her attorney not looking into the dates in question - do lawyers in the States, with its overly litigious culture, even tell clients "hey, you got a real clunker of a case here, I'd advise you not to proceed" or is it just go go go go go

I mean, they're not supposed to do that - you can see the Verification signed by the plaintiff's attorney at the end of the Complaint, where he attests under penalty of perjury that the allegations are "true to as to his knowledge" or that he "believes them to be true." Obviously, there are unscrupulous attorneys.

I tried looking him up, not finding much, he seems to be a personal injury guy. There's also another attorney who signed the complaint itself, with a little more of a paper trail.

I mean obv you should believe your client (or be willing to fight for them in court lol) but I mean more in a "there's no way your case will be successful, honest advice"

Here's more on the second guy (Gleason). Sounds like a colorful character: https://www.nydailynews.com/news/crime/-article-1.1039461

(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