So I Hear You’re a Nonce Now, Bob Dylan…

[Nowhere Man]

The thing that really gets me is that the attorney that helped her file this case clearly didn't do his research into where or what Dylan was doing at that time in his life. Just the fact that the dates cited completely mismatch the historic documentation is surely enough to get the case thrown out quite easily.

So even if there was truth to the case and the dates are wrong, that attorney has completely fucked up the case with his negligence surely? So the poor woman could either be telling the truth or have severe mental issues, but the guy defending her is gonna make her look a complete berk either way.

[kngen]

The thing that really gets me is that the attorney that helped her file this case clearly didn't do his research into where or what Dylan was doing at that time in his life. Just the fact that the dates cited completely mismatch the historic documentation is surely enough to get the case thrown out quite easily.

So even if there was truth to the case and the dates are wrong, that attorney has completely fucked up the case with his negligence surely? So the poor woman could either be telling the truth or have severe mental issues, but the guy defending her is gonna make her look a complete berk either way.

Yeah, was just thinking that. Whoever did the discovery needs their baws toed.

[Custard]

On the basis of not much, I'm making an early bet that he's innocent. Dunno why, a gut feeling. Hate to say "he doesn't seem the type", but he doesn't, to me. I don't think he's ever been accused of acting inappropriately around women, or minors. Til now, obviously

Of course, if he's guilty he should be stuffed in a boiling hot pie and all his records used as the crust etc

[Nice Relaxing Poo]

But the perfect excuse for those journalists who are now probably raking over every lyric and interview to look for clues.

There's probably an outtake from the basement tapes titled "I Fucking Love a Bit of Noncing Me!" that has been waiting to see the light of day for nigh on 55 years.

[PeasOnSticks]

The thing that really gets me is that the attorney that helped her file this case clearly didn't do his research into where or what Dylan was doing at that time in his life. Just the fact that the dates cited completely mismatch the historic documentation is surely enough to get the case thrown out quite easily.

So even if there was truth to the case and the dates are wrong, that attorney has completely fucked up the case with his negligence surely? So the poor woman could either be telling the truth or have severe mental issues, but the guy defending her is gonna make her look a complete berk either way.

It's not as if it's difficult to find out where Dylan was during that time period. I guess the question is whether there were short periods within that time when something could have happened. Or is the allegation that this 6-week grooming period happened over April/May in New York? If so, surely there's no way the case won't get thrown out. Which would mean a monumental error on the part of her representatives - and hardly proof of legal rigour. If there's any truth in these allegations, that's scandalous incompetence. And if there isn't, it's shyster lawyering par excellence.

[PeasOnSticks]

On the basis of not much, I'm making an early bet that he's innocent. Dunno why, a gut feeling. Hate to say "he doesn't seem the type", but he doesn't, to me. I don't think he's ever been accused of acting inappropriately around women, or minors. Til now, obviously

Of course, if he's guilty he should be stuffed in a boiling hot pie and all his records used as the crust etc

I think it's reasonably clear that he's not conducted all his relationships unimpeachably, but it seems to have been more along the lines of two-timing partners or sleeping with other people's girlfriends - a general lack of respect for relationship boundaries. This thing would be a whole different kettle of fish, obviously.

[Twit 2]

First Guy Ritchie and now this!

[Flouncer]

There's probably an outtake from the basement tapes titled "I Fucking Love a Bit of Noncing Me!" that has been waiting to see the light of day for nigh on 55 years.

Let's face it, if she provides documentary evidence the cunt will probably sue her for the rights and release it as the latest volume of the Bootleg Series.

[chveik]

They were ALL at it in the 70's!

You only have to look at the song titles and album covers (hello Scorpions!) - it all went with the "rock and roll outlaw" attitude - they did illegal drugs, so it's not that surprising that some were also into illegal sex!

i didn't particularly mean in the rock music world, the number of abusers that were let scot-free at that time is insane.

[Goldentony]

His press release on this started two weeks ago and it's only just taken any recognisable form

[Flouncer]

The original draft had twelve verses before he pared it down to the bare essentials.

[kalowski]

If it's proved to be true, one can only sympathise with the victim. And if it isn't, Dylan is surely tainted now in any case, unless it can be clearly shown that the allegations (of which we know very few details at the moment) are baseless.

If it isn't true Dylan is tainted unless he can show it is baseless?

[Leo2112]

The attorney who has filed the claims is a known ambulance chaser who doesn't even have his own website.  So if this woman's claims are genuine she has unfortunately landed herself with dud legal respresentation.

[PeasOnSticks]

If it isn't true Dylan is tainted unless he can show it is baseless?

In the eyes of some, I'd wager. A lot of people will have clocked the noncing headlines, made that particular association with Dylan, and are unlikely to think too much more about it unless/until it's publicly proved or disproved. At the very least, there'll be a fair amount of suspicion attached to him. I'm not saying that's right - the onus is surely on the accuser to provide proof of guilt - but the headlines will have already done a fair bit of damage. That's the problem with a media culture of reporting accusations before any evidence has been presented.

[Captain Z]

Doubtful evidence submitted?
No, dates checked!

[jamiefairlie]

In the eyes of some, I'd wager. A lot of people will have clocked the noncing headlines, made that particular association with Dylan, and are unlikely to think too much more about it unless/until it's publicly proved or disproved. At the very least, there'll be a fair amount of suspicion attached to him. I'm not saying that's right - the onus is surely on the accuser to provide proof of guilt - but the headlines will have already done a fair bit of damage.

Sadly true, and no consequences to the false accuser (in this scenario, not making any comments on this particular case).

[Phoenix Lazarus]

"Li-ike a roll-ing stoooonnnneee....' but hopefully not Bill Wyman.

[Video Game Fan 2000]

I was gonna post something glib about "I was wondering how many people never listen to Bob Dylan and always hated him, and now I'll get to find out" but no one did that.

Good work everyone.

[Video Game Fan 2000]

If its confirmed an ambulance chaser thing are jokes ok?

Or do we have to wait for the results of Operation [Bob Dylan voice]yewwwww[/Bob Dylan voice] Tree.

Real talk though even though the details of this are suspicious as hell, the thought of someone being abused by a man treated as a living god in the 1960s, then waiting until the right legal window appeared only to have some Lionel Hutz cunt fuck it up and make a clown of her in the papers is a fucking awful thought. Dylan is a known cunt, a total narcissist, Boxcar Trump. His behaviour in the 60s documentary makes me put nothing past him.

[peanutbutter]

Yeah, was just thinking that. Whoever did the discovery needs their baws toed.

It's possible they had literally hours to file it too though, from what I can gather. It was a last minute filing before some deadline, at which point it would be deemed inadmissable.

[badaids]

With Dylan (who I love), I have always wondered about if there is anything dodgy in his closet, as he seems to squeaky clean.  But then there is all the Bohemian Grove stuff, much of which Google won't throw up anymore and says it has been removed.

[Mr Banlon]

There's probably an outtake from the basement tapes titled "I Fucking Love a Bit of Noncing Me!" that has been waiting to see the light of day for nigh on 55 years.

"No Bob, we can't call it that. We're changing it to 'Tapes'."

[Leo2112]

It's possible they had literally hours to file it too though, from what I can gather. It was a last minute filing before some deadline, at which point it would be deemed inadmissable.

Some lawyers on reddit have discussed claims filed just before a Statute of Limitations deadline:

For cases that I have handled (especially when I'm reading the complaint thinking"wtf is this?"), filing just before the deadline often suggests to me that the lawyer was on the fence whether to file then the statute of limitations forced his hand. There's a saying in the law that everything can be fixed except blowing the deadline for requests to admit (not relevant here) and statutes of limitations. There are no extensions for an SoL. It's one of the very very few hard deadlines in the law. Considering the statute allowing this lady to file was already an exception to the usual SoL, no judge was going to bend over backwards to keep this lawsuit around, especially with the pleadings as thin they are.

Thus, when you're a Plaintiff's attorney and you have a shitty cases, but there *might.... just might.... be something there, you have a tough conundrum. If you blow the SoL because you don't presently think you have the facts for a good lawsuit, you could be subject to a malpractice claim later if those facts become known.

If you file, and your case sucks, it just gets dismissed. Thus, you're better off filing a thinly substantiated lawsuit then hoping that the extra information you get through your right of discovery (information thsat Dylan will be obligated to provide) and subpoena power (getting records and testimony from other parties) leads to a big win.

[Dusty Substance]

They were ALL at it in the 70's!

You only have to look at the song titles and album covers (hello Scorpions!) - it all went with the "rock and roll outlaw" attitude - they did illegal drugs, so it's not that surprising that some were also into illegal sex!

Gary Puckett made a career out of singing about it.

[pigamus]

"Li-ike a roll-ing stoooonnnneee....' but hopefully not Bill Wyman.

Joe Pasquale enters thread

[El Unicornio, mang]

But why? If I could have sex with children with no consequences for myself I...wouldn't. Seems bizarre that they were child abusers because...we're all at it.

Not condoning any illegal behaviour, but I wouldn't be surprised if these rock stars who were permanently drunk/off their heads, and having girls streaming into their backstage areas/tour buses on a daily basis, might have slept with older looking underage girls without knowing. I doubt many of them were checking IDs.

[holyzombiejesus]

Like A Rolling Stone (Bill Wyman)

"Li-ike a roll-ing stoooonnnneee....' but hopefully not Bill Wyman.

[daf]

Gary Puckett made a career out of singing about it.

This is the sheet music :

The song is sung from the point of view of a man who has become delighted "distressed" upon finding out that the girl he is with, contrary to the first impression she had made upon him, is actually younger than the legal age of consent. Though she knew that it was wrong to be alone with him, my client maintains that the saucy minx did have the "Come on look" in her eye, so that's alright then. Case dismissed!

[Video Game Fan 2000]

The way Dylan treats people in a lot of mid-60s footage is just horrifying. There's loads of rock star excess to find and horrendous behaviour to gawk at, Gene Simmons, Marilyn Manson, Led Zeppelin, Jerry Lee Lewis... but there's something chilling about the level of deference around him. He's swanning around like a feudal lord or the leader of a doomsday cult and everyone is visibly crumpling in front of him wherever he goes, and he's rolling his eyes and turning his back on everyone he meets. No conversation ends he just flounces off when the other person has stopped being amusing to him.

I love Dylan, so its pretty awful to watch his behaviour versus how he is in the 1965 filmed interviews and press conferences where the constraints make him come over as a witty, aloof guy with tons of empathy and curiosity. Then you see him outside of that context and he interacts with his fellow human beings like a child playing with legos. Considering the emotional content of his musics is almost impossible to square one with 'tother.

[Flouncer]

I love Dylan, so its pretty awful to watch his behaviour versus how he is in the 1965 filmed interviews and press conferences where the constraints make him come over as a witty, aloof guy with tons of empathy and curiosity. Then you see him outside of that context and he interacts with his fellow human beings like a child playing with legos. Considering the emotional content of his musics is almost impossible to square one with 'tother.

Bob arguing with some cats about who threw glass in the street.