advertisement


Dylan accused of sexually abusing a 12-year-old

How does my suggestion take any side, or more importantly, take anything away from the alleged victim?
Because it takes a great deal of courage to come forward, some will be braver than others & making it public redresses the balance. This is no different to non-celebrities, this is also likely to be habitual behaviour.

Just look at the recent scandal around abuse of young footballers, no way people would have come forward without some reassurance of being believed. Strength in numbers etc.
 
You'd be OK with being falsely accused of child abuse?
I am sure I would be pretty unhappy about it but that is largely irrelevant when viewed in full context.

Dylan will have far better lawyers than I could afford & a really efficient media team behind him.

Only time will tell on this one.
 
As I am no legal expert, please excuse what might be a stupid question.

Criminal cases are made on a case-by-case basis. Just because you have a group of people saying the same thing, unless one comes forward with a case that has the weight of evidence that has a chance of succeeding, it's not going to work. No-one has ever been convicted for being a 'wrong-un', only on hard evidence.

So, what you're saying is, not having anonymity for the alleged perpetrator is the best chance for strong single case to come forward?
Cases such as this is often about one persons word against another, very difficult to prove but if multiple people come forward then this adds extra corroboration.

It not like breaking & entering or armed robbery when you can get caught in camera or leave DNA behind. Conviction rates are pitiful for sexual offences so you even have a large number of liars or it’s just really really difficult to prove. I don’t think things are stacked in favour of the accuser.
 
I am sure I would be pretty unhappy about it but that is largely irrelevant when viewed in full context.

Dylan will have far better lawyers than I could afford & a really efficient media team behind him.

Only time will tell on this one.

As a matter of interest, what do you believe the sanction should be for a false claim?
 
No doubt someone as well documented as Dylan was at the time should be able to settle their whereabouts in short order, and the case moved forward and proven or binned off accordingly.

I have no opinion on Dylan as a man, don't know him. But this actually seems remarkably unlikely.
 
I’m beyond amazed how few accusations have hit 60s and 70s rock musicians to date. I don’t know anything about Dylan, I’ve certainly never heard him named in such a context, but there are many other household names who I suspect will be watching this all unfold with some trepidation.
Some of them even wrote lyrics about it. I can just see Prosecution Counsel making an attempt at, in a cut glass accent-
Good morning little schoolgirl
Can I go home, home with you?
Good morning little schoolgirl
Can I go home, home with you?

asking the defendant “Mr.Lee, would you tell the court what you meant by that?”

I didn’t post the rest of the lyrics btw.
 
I know you didn't ask me, but at least perverting the course of justice and wasting police time?
As this is a civil claim there'll be no police time wasted. The sanction in a sane judicial system is that the unsuccessful party picks up the tab for all the costs. I believe that's not necessarily the case in most, if not all states in the USA. Couple that with the ridiculous level of damages awarded over there and claimant firms are happy to gamble, especially when a jury is added into the brew.
I once sent an oil rig injury claim to a Texas firm. Over here the claimant would have got about £10,000. The Texas court awarded him $750,000. My American agents took a third of it for costs, and my firm got a third of their take.
 
Mm, a bizarre example with bad behaviour from the BBC & largely irrelevant to this case.

What a bizarre parallel, I am sure Cliff hasn’t suffered to the same degree as actual victims of abuse.

Certainly aged him a lot; it would be enough to push some to suicide for sure.

I feel you're being a bit dismissive of the potential impact on a poor old guy who's life is based around reputation.
 
As I am no legal expert, please excuse what might be a stupid question.

Criminal cases are made on a case-by-case basis. Just because you have a group of people saying the same thing, unless one comes forward with a case that has the weight of evidence that has a chance of succeeding, it's not going to work. No-one has ever been convicted for being a 'wrong-un', only on hard evidence.

So, what you're saying is, not having anonymity for the alleged perpetrator is the best chance for strong single case to come forward?
Essentially yes, but also, a mass of corroboratary evidence from numerous sources might constitute compelling circumstantial evidence, eg if a consistent MO is described; or as has been mentioned, it could be enough for a civil claim.
 
These NY things are civil claims for money. Money. Money. Since the civil burden of proof is set at a lower bar than criminal, there are lawyers who will have a go, thinking they do not have to spend much to make the claim. They hope that the mountainous likely cost of a good defence will prompt the defendant to go for a settlement. Yeah! It cannot be said the Dylan is an abuser on this basis - that can only be done in a criminal case. Not sure if there is a statute of limitations in NY that would rule that out over his timeframe.

The exact same is happening in the Andrew case - the difficulty there is that the lawyers have to find a way to pin the papers on the man himself. I reckon they are unlikely to get anywhere near him in the timeframe they have.

And again, if you had bothered even to read the thread above, never mind the report I linked to, you would already know the answer to the question you asked.

Is it really too much to ask that people read a news report they're commenting on before they comment?
 
Most people will take up a position on this based on whether they like his music or him regardless of the facts and how the media chose to report it, including me of course, so here’s my twopenneth.

By 1965 Dylan was very famous and stratospherically cool - hipper than Mitch Miller even - and could have been very popular with women if he wanted. So abusing a minor doesn’t make much sense but obviously doesn’t rule it out completely who knows what goes on in another persons mind.
 
As a matter of interest, what do you believe the sanction should be for a false claim?
I am not sure but there will be some form of legal redress. Let’s be honest, the way the wagons have circled around Saint Bob I feel the accusers life will be made a complete misery.
 
I am not sure but there will be some form of legal redress. Let’s be honest, the way the wagons have circled around Saint Bob I feel the accusers life will be made a complete misery.

Let's hope they are not as quick to judge as you obviously are.
 
Let's hope they are not as quick to judge as you obviously are.
I am not judging anyone, just dismayed at the assumptions toward the alleged victim, the opinion seems to be that she is lying. I am very sensitive towards the pervasive trend of victim shaming which seems quite prevalent on here.

I am sure Bob will clear his name & the accuser will end up vilified. Is that a better outcome?
 


advertisement


Back
Top