entertainment

Bob Dylan sued for allegedly sexually abusing girl in 1965

50 Comments

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© 2021 AFP

©2021 GPlusMedia Inc.

50 Comments
Login to comment

Waited for 56 years?

Throw this out of court and charge her costs for wasting time.

39 ( +45 / -6 )

Another mud idol ??..

Let's see..

-13 ( +4 / -17 )

Accusations should not be made public until they are investigated thoroughly by the police and at least reach a trial. This throwing around accusations based on hearsay and twitter is infantile. Let a court of law do its job before the amateur Twitter judges give their verdict.

I hope he sues for defamation.

42 ( +45 / -3 )

A darling of the pseudo-intellectual. He's always had a sleazy, chutzpah rich side and don't be surprised if, given this revelation, others don't pop up as well.

-26 ( +6 / -32 )

56 years ago. I doubt Dylan can even remember much from then. Way too stoned.

24 ( +28 / -4 )

A darling of the pseudo-intellectual.

Are you really trying to criticize the artistic value of the only musician on Earth with a Nobel prize in literature? That's a pretty bold move.

17 ( +24 / -7 )

My sympathy for the woman if the charges are really true. But isn't there a statute of limitations for this?

21 ( +23 / -2 )

Simply absured......

19 ( +21 / -2 )

Interesting to see how people are so quick to rush to the defense of Dylan. I wonder how different the reaction would be if it was somebody you loathed like Trump.

There was a statute of limitations put in place in New York for historical victims of childhood sexual abuse that closed on 14 August 2021. The woman's claim was obviously filed to beat this deadline.

-9 ( +12 / -21 )

Are you really trying to criticize the artistic value of the only musician on Earth with a Nobel prize in literature? 

@Jsapc Just because he has a Nobel Prize doesn't mean he deserved it. They hand them out willy-nilly these days.

-16 ( +7 / -23 )

60 years is a long long time ago.

14 ( +15 / -1 )

I think its way past the statute of limitations.

Simply absurd to come around trying to accuse someone for that might have happened 60 years ago???

15 ( +16 / -1 )

When challenged about these allegations Dylan remarked "It Ain't Me, Babe, but One of Us Must Know. If you ask me, the answer's Blowin' in the Wind".

0 ( +2 / -2 )

Just because he has a Nobel Prize doesn't mean he deserved it. They hand them out willy-nilly these days.

No, they really don't, actually.

12 ( +17 / -5 )

In 1965! In 1965!!!! LOL!!!! This has got to be a joke!!! Can you imagine investigating this? Finding HOT leads, witnesses that are still alive and not senile after all this time! 1960s was wild, one can't remember anything due to the haze of pot smoke! This one is definitely for the record books!

12 ( +15 / -3 )

Statue of limitations applies to criminal court.

She's suing him so this would be civil court.

5 ( +7 / -2 )

I have no understanding why sexual assault is different from some-one-beat me almost to death, ripped out one of my eyes, and carved a swastika into my posterior assault. Three year statute of limitations at best. Only exception is if you are under 18... then a three year statute triggered once you are an adult. Anything else is a scam used to fleece or denigrate people when any witness is already dead and any evidence is too late to acquire.

3 ( +5 / -2 )

Statue of limitations applies to criminal court.

She's suing him so this would be civil court.

Actually there are limitation periods that apply to civil claims as well. Under normal rules of civil procedure this claim would be time barred since it is so long after the facts occurred.

In New York though the legislature passed a law which specifcally allowed the claims of child sex abuse victims to proceed despite the statute of limitations expiring. It was mainly intended to allow victims of the Catholic Church's many sexual predators to bring claims, but is available to anyone who was a child sex abuse victim. The reason this suit against Dylan is being brought this week is because the extended limitation period for such claims expires this week.

7 ( +7 / -0 )

Did she bother saying in her suit that Bob Dylan was on a lengthy tour in Britain and Europe during the time she alleges this offending took place?

6 ( +7 / -1 )

I am sure that the statute of limitations applies here.

-5 ( +0 / -5 )

New York enacted a law in 2019, Child Victim”s Act, and it suspends statute of limitations for child sex abuse claims, which is why the woman here is and can come forward now with this assertion.

Another legend falls.

-8 ( +4 / -12 )

Yet another of these ridiculous decades-old, evidence-free allegations. First Prince Andrew, now Bob Dylan ... the next thing you know they'll be trying to sue the estate of someone who is dead. Make the claim at the time or I don't believe you.

3 ( +5 / -2 )

She might as well roll the dice…get her 15 minutes

1 ( +3 / -2 )

56 years. This is the kind of cr#p that makes me doubtful of almost all the retroactive claims.

He said, she said; no way to check for credibility with any of the "witnesses' accounts," people can make up anything thing they want, and so on.

If something happens to you, file charges sooner right after it happens. Period.

5 ( +7 / -2 )

Next it will be Mick Jagger and Jimmy Page.

3 ( +3 / -0 )

Still waiting for the experts to weigh in on this issue.

-4 ( +0 / -4 )

A lot of the comments above talk about the statute of limitations which is fair enough however I find it incredulous that some in here appear to have views on whether this incident did or didn't actually happen at all. Do they know something that we don't?

...and the comment about handing out Nobel prizes willy-nilly... oh dear.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

PaulToday  02:13 pm JST

In 1965! In 1965!!!! LOL!!!! This has got to be a joke!!! Can you imagine investigating this? Finding HOT leads, witnesses that are still alive and not senile after all this time! 1960s was wild, one can't remember anything due to the haze of pot smoke! This one is definitely for the record books!

Witnesses? Don't you know this is 2021 you don't need any witnesses!

According to all the social media, multiple world leaders we are supposed to believe the "victim" because "women don't lie about things like this"

Which is funny how suddenly the memory of these people becomes very short when you mention the Duke university Lacrosse team incident, suddenly they have collective amnesia. And that is not the only time "money" was a motive for such allegations but we are told not to point these out.

5 ( +7 / -2 )

Already disproven. He was out of the country with Joan Baez

0 ( +0 / -0 )

William Bjornson:

You got any sources/links for those allegations of Dylan’s “sleazy chutzpah rich side”, sport? Anything other than the usual rock star stuff? Unlike you, I suspect, I have actually read quite a bit about the man and I’ve never seen anything that would match the excessive lifestyles of most of the rich and famous. Maybe you were part of the entourage? Maybe you know stuff that others don’t?

Or are you just trying to wind up us “pseudo-intellectuals”?

8 ( +8 / -0 )

Bob Dylan, in 1965, like many rock musicians of the era, were dirt poor and not very rich. The wealth came later. His first marriage was to Sara Dylan from 1965 to 1977. The divorce cost him $35 million.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

It will be interesting to see how this plays out. If what she says is true, it may not be possible to successfully sue him, but it may make her feel better. If it is not true, then she needs help.

3 ( +3 / -0 )

Me too gone mad

4 ( +5 / -1 )

Just remember that any ""woman"" can claim at some point in her life she was sexually abused !! but that doesn't really mean it did happen, often times it's falls claims, driven by greed or just simply confused. This madness must stop, this abuse of the judicial system must end, these layers should have their licenses suspended for bringing and false claims to courts.

2 ( +5 / -3 )

The judicial system is well-equipped to deal with false claims such as criminal charges of perjury and damages for legal fees.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

Me too, Mccarthyism, no more, no less.

2 ( +4 / -2 )

I have no idea whether this is legally possible, but ask the accuser how much she wants. Confirm this number with her until she's adamant about it. Then tell her that if her claims are proven false, she has to pay Dylan the same amount for slandering him. See how seriously she takes it then.

3 ( +3 / -0 )

There has to be confirmation of a facts by evidence. In a trial by jury or judge.

The "burden of proof" 

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Interesting to see how people are so quick to rush to the defense of Dylan. I wonder how different the reaction would be if it was somebody you loathed like Trump.

I give 0 damn about either Dylan or Trump, and my reaction would be 0% different - this is ridiculous. Maybe don't wait 56 years to report an alleged crime and people will take you more seriously.

5 ( +5 / -0 )

Are you really trying to criticize the artistic value of the only musician on Earth with a Nobel prize in literature? That's a pretty bold move.

Obama's Peace Prize. POLITICS OF MONEY AND 'INFLUENCE'. And simply being literate...obviousness is NEVER a worthy literary value

William Bjornson: You got any sources/links for those allegations of Dylan’s “sleazy chutzpah rich side”, sport?

Well, sport, you want credentialed Authorities as to what is chutzpah? My own opinion comes mostly from who I observed somehow worshiping him at the time of his popularity and what I thought of their characters and abilities to discern Human value. I have not yet read what sort of delirium affected the Nobel Committee who thought, or were 'influenced' to see, that he had made a panHuman contribution to our sad world so, next time I'm sitting in my cogitorium I will see if I can find something, an appropriate place for such research.

Let's just see how this thing goes and that may settle the pain of having scabs ripped off the faces of the dearly beloveds of our lives. My own experiences in this came early when reading more deeply of my own youthful 'heros' Bell and Edison, scumbags both, and I won't even go on about the Human horror that was Albert. What will be interesting, if the case is made, will be the reaction of the Nobel Committee to having awarded the first Nobel Prize to an outed pedophile. That's the kind of iconoclasm that will keep me spontaneously chortling for years...

And, all of the hostile reactions we see just here are not about that guy, but about the reactor's own self-judged ability to discern Human worth and, perhaps, not being as discerning as their egos have previously told them they are. I think the phrase used is 'defensive reaction', no?

Again, only time and the power of even sleazier attorneys will tell...

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

Wow, that brings back memories. I watched Dylan perform live with Joan Baez in Feb. '65.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I watched Dylan perform live with Joan Baez in Feb. '65.

And was she of legal age?

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

Maybe don't wait 56 years to report an alleged crime and people will take you more seriously.

Yeah, by this point, because she waited so long, it's her fault, and she deserved it, right?

-7 ( +0 / -7 )

I have no idea if this occurred but the American media reported that the alleged crime(s) occurred during April and May of 1965 and that seems unlikely. For the first half of April he was on a west coast tour and from April 30 he went on tour in the UK, which has been extensively documented — the documentary “Don’t Look Back” was made during that tour. We know pretty much where he was every day during that period. And he was getting ready to get married in the fall so he is believed to have spent his down time on the road with his fiancé (and a number of friends) who were traveling with him or dropped by (Donovan, a certain Fab Four…).

7 ( +7 / -0 )

Author Clinton Heylin says the singer was in England and Los Angeles for much of the period in 1965. Heylin also said the singer didn’t start living at the Chelsea Hotel until autumn of that year.

3 ( +3 / -0 )

perhaps, not being as discerning as their egos have previously told them they are. I think the phrase used is 'defensive reaction', no?

If I may respond in the same vein of condescension as you've decided to adopt as your modus operandi, I'd say it's always the response of the uncomprehending - and/or the just plain hostile - to start throwing out accusations of "pseudo-intellectualism" whenever they feel threatened by that which they just do not understand.

My own opinion comes mostly from who I observed somehow worshiping him at the time of his popularity and what I thought of their characters and abilities to discern Human value.

Deary me, Mr Bjornson. Something was happening there, but you don't know what it was...

0 ( +0 / -0 )

@William BjornsonAug. 17  09:41 am JST

“A darling of the pseudo-intellectual. He's always had a sleazy, chutzpah rich side and don't be surprised if, given this revelation, others don't pop up as well.”

An interesting point you make regarding the great Mr Dylan. I feel that it’s more of a short cut to thinking than anything else.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

mountainpearAug. 17  10:51 am JST

Interesting to see how people are so quick to rush to the defense of Dylan. I wonder how different the reaction would be if it was somebody you loathed like Trump.

There was a statute of limitations put in place in New York for historical victims of childhood sexual abuse that closed on 14 August 2021. The woman's claim was obviously filed to beat this deadline.

Rape and sexual assault affects people thruout their lives but she's had a full enough life already and 58 years is a long time to carry this psychological baggage. Yet he and she are both pretty old now, and I smell a rat here.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Simply absurd to come around trying to accuse someone for that might have happened 60 years ago???

56 years ago, actually.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

StrangerlandAug. 18 12:42 am JST

Maybe don't wait 56 years to report an alleged crime and people will take you more seriously.

Yeah, by this point, because she waited so long, it's her fault, and she deserved it, right?

Actually what I was going to say is, isn't it odd that when women report right away, no one believes them; and when they wait short while, no one believes them; and when they wait a really long time no one believes them.

Huh. It's almost as if it's not when or how or where or why they report that is the problem.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites