Bob Dylan Sex Abuse Allegation

How so? "over a six week period" is a very broad statement. It could mean every moment of every day for 6 weeks or i could mean anything down to as little as twice, 6 weeks apart. The first scenario is pretty much ruled out unless the girl travelled with BD. The second scenario is not ruled out at all by the timeline.

The fact that some people are ignoring the actual claim of " over a 6 week period" and misinterpreting it to mean "every day for 6 weeks", suggests they are not looking at it objectively and are instead looking for reasons to justify the prejudiced conclusion that he didn't do it (couldn't have done it).

Unless we know the details of the claim (and we don't) then we cant pretend the timeline tells us anything (unless the timeline demonstrated that they couldn't possibly have made contact during that period, which it doesn't)

Ok. If you want to prove a point then you could reinterpret it to mean the UK kicked him out. But why go OTT to make your point? You started off with the very reasonable position that we should wait for the investigation but since then you've moved to looking or any reason to suggest he likely didn't do it, up to and including exaggerating the claims about JLL because it seems to help your point. What's changed? Why not just admit we don't have a clue and wait for the investigation? This timeline stuff is a red herring, based entirely on changing the claim the woman is making.

That is a claim that's demonstrably true. Jerry lee lewis was tut-tutted at for having sex with a 13 year old girl. Now he would be criminally charged.

What happened to just waiting for the investigation?

Good summary of what you are saying here. The accuser and her lawyer seem confident that they still have a case despite the tour dates and Dylan's biographer claiming it was not possible. Either way, can see this being very difficult to prove for either side.

According to his biographer he left for London on April 26 and didn't return until June (no idea if accurate). Given the length of time involved and the possible lack of reliable evidence, an accusation of 6 weeks over April and May doesn't look great for the accuser. However, it is all just speculation. I am not au fait with the New York legal system, so not sure who gets to decide if there is a case or not?

The Biographer's account is neither complete nor does it rule out the claims but the accuser. He doesn't claim to have a full account of BD's movements but makes the claim the "it's not possible". That's where things get dangerous. He can't make that claim without a big dollop of I-don't-want-it-to-be-true-so-I'll-say-it's-not-possible.

What on earth is so wrong with just admitting we don't actually have any evidence at this point in time and couldn't possibly rule the allegations in or out?

Not as far as we can see. Some people misinterpreted (intentionally or by accident) "over a 6 week period" to mean "every day for 6 weeks" and are now saying that she has changed her story. It's only difficult to understand if you're coming at it from a biased perspective.

An honest look at it makes it easy to understand and easy to see that the claim has not changed and the timeline has changed nothing.

Jimmy Savile was never convicted in a court of law so I guess he was innocent too, innocent until proven guilty.

If you google it's in every article about this case. Dylan's schedule had him flying out of Seattle airport on April 25th. His tour dates were to May 10th. He then did a studio session to May 12th. He then went to Portugal with Sarah Lownds. Dylan returned to the UK on May 24th and was admitted to hospital. Joan Baez said that it was here that she first saw Sarah Lownds and understood that her relationship with Dylan was over.

n the case, JC says that Dylan sexually assaulted her several times over the course of six weeks, in April and May 1965. Although the victim deserves to be heard and have her day in court, it is remarkable that it appears that Dylan hardly was in New York City during the two months. Looking at his 1965 concert schedule, Dylan arrived in California on March 27th to a concert in Santa Monica with Joan Baez, whom he was dating at the time. They made a short series of dates on the West Coast and ended up in Vancouver on April 9th.

Portugal, England and influenza

From 9th April until April 30th, Bob Dylan did not do any concerts and he may not have returned to New York. It has also been reported that he stayed in California with Sara Lownds, his lover who would eventually become his wife. What is probably documented is that Dylan, his band The Hawks, filmmaker DA Pennebaker and his crew and Lownds all arrived in England on April 26th, 1965 for the now legendary tour of England. This trip was documented by Pennebaker for the film Do not look back. A recording of the film, which is available on YouTube, shows Dylan and Baez leaving Seattle-Tacoma airport on April 25th for London. It is very possible that he never returned to New York after leaving in late March.

The English tour, famous for crowds bowing to Dylan to go electric, ran through May 10th, followed by a recording session in London on 12th May. Dylan and Lownds then traveled together to Portugal. Press reports from the time Dylan State returned to England on 24th May and was admitted to the hospital with an unknown illness. Dylan historians disagree on how much longer Dylan was in England, but it was probably at least well into June, returning to New York to begin recording his next album, Highway 61 revised, no later than 15th June.

That's a great thread, mad how fans think they know someone. And seem to be so invested in them.

One guy reckons it may have been someone in Chelsea Hotel saying they were Dylan, and hopes it isn't the actual Bob Dylan that did it ha.

People are mad. We put way to many celebs on pedestals.

I don't see how its a red herring. The claim is he groomed and assaulted her in April and May in New York. If it turns out he wasn't even in the USA during May that year then it definitely weakens her claim. I'm not saying it didn't happen but people are always going to discuss these cases based on the current knowledge. And based o the current talks their is holes in her story that raises doubts.