Defend the indefensible - Bob Dylan.

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.

how much lifting is "and all that" doing

xxpost it is absolutely unfortunate if it proves to be groundless, as that kind of sleaze tends not to rub off. I don't think any justification is necessary.

Hard as it is for me to picture Dylan indulging in the same kind of behaviour as his rock star contemporaries(he always seemed, I dunno, a bit too aloof for that), I would also be in the wait and see camp. If there's anything more than gossip and hearsay to implicate him then it needs to be heard.

Yeah, I don’t mean to totally dismiss it, and I’m obviously biased in hoping it’s not true. There’s just a lot that makes me dubious - Dylan in mid-65 was one of the most in-the-spotlight people you could imagine, and seemed to have an entourage with him all the time. And I think the view of Dylan in 1965 was fairly different than, say, Led Zeppelin in 1970. I’d say that “holier-than-thou protest singer is secretly degenerate pervert” would be a big story if a reporter got wind of it, it wasn’t like much of the press was worshipful of him.

But, y’know, I don’t know, he certainly had a lot of power within his scene and could probably get away with a lot. Just seems hard to believe that with all the turns in his career and all the people he pissed off at one point or another that this would never be mentioned.

The Dylan who emerges in Heylin's first oral history was a real asshole to women, going so far as to steal his best friend's wife during a sodden period in the mid '80s. Like tipsy, I can believe all manner of behavior, though his MO is not sexual predator/stalker.

G.E. Smith comments as character witness

not with that hair he won't

I'm sure you could get lots of people who worked with [fill in well-known sexual predator here] to give similar testimony as GE's. obviously I would prefer for this allegation not to be true, and it does seem *very* shaky at the moment, but yeah, we'll have to wait for more info.

Sleeping with another man’s wife is nothing like being a pedophile. Xp

Not looking forward to the defense that reveals what Dylan *is* into.

jugglers and clowns iirc

Yeah I think Phylicia Rashad shows the limits of co-worker testimonials.

Sleeping with another man’s wife is nothing like being a pedophile. Xp

― treeship.

I implied otherwise?

It just seems like an irrelevant data point

if you sayso

i always kind of assumed he was a womanizer, but not really the predatory type. just kind of had all the right moves; free love, so to speak. so idk, maybe he did.

but, that being said, the initial accusation as we know it now doesn't seem very plausible.

Not looking forward to the defense that reveals what Dylan *is* into.

Poor old Dylan fans, how you must be suffering.

imagine the corns

In this thread I discovered people way too much about Bob Dylan.

Something I've never been able to forget was this brief gossip item that ran in Spin around '99 about Dylan's people reaching out to Elastica's management about bringing them aboard as a support act on the Never Ending Tour, with the ulterior motive that Dylan had seen some photos of Justine Frischmann and got really hot for her.

None of these other gossip items = child abuse, and the fact we're discussing them illustrates why the G.E. Smith testimonial is as valid as anything else right now (apparently Dylan's first manager, from the early '60s, spoke up too). That isn't anything like Phylicia Rashad standing by Cosby despite everything we know to be true in his case. All we have is a civil complaint with a shocking claim and no other real details, and the lawyers who filed it speaking to anyone who contacts them, saying (in effect) "Trust us." They're using the press to their advantage (and no doubt increase pressure for a settlement, which is their right), so it's reasonable for those whose initial reaction is doubt to respond to questions as well.

No one should feel bad for Bob. He's rich and barring any revelations he and his reputation will come through this fine. What Weberman did to him was probably worse.

Is it possible that they are going to allege some kind of long-distance phone abuse?

Someone I know (not well, my wife know her better) had fairly recent experience of him being into watching other people have sex (she didn’t oblige).
― Alba, Wednesday, 18 August 2021 18:28 (one hour ago) link

Yeah we've heard "Visions of Johanna"

The one thing the lawyers seem really specific about is "we know she was with him at the Chelsea" — so that suggests some kind of documentary evidence, a photo or something, or corroborating testimony. Unless they're Sidney Powell-ing it, in which case it could all be imaginary.