The last 5 pages on this thread were dominated by reports of a court case brought in August 2021 by a woman alleging that Dylan abused her over a six-week period in 1965 when she was 12 years old. That case has now been withdrawn "with prejudice", meaning that it can never be reinstated. Report here from The Hollywood Reporter:
Bob Dylan Abuse Accuser Drops Case. The court found that the plaintiff was not only refusing to hand over emails and text messages that purportedly case doubt over her case but that she'd also destroyed those materials.
There was actually quite a lot about this that didn't smell right from the start. First, there's plenty of evidence that, in the six-week period in which he allegedly groomed the complainant in New York, he was barely in the city. Indeed, he spent a part of it on tour in the UK and then on holiday in continental Europe. She subsequently amended her pleading to allege a wider interval when the alleged abuse happened, but it's hardly convincing.
(As an aside, it's often seemed to irritate Dylan - and perhaps understandably so - that he has a whole raft of obsessive loons among his fanbase who know far more about his life than he does. Maybe this is one occasion when he might actually have been grateful for it.)
Second, although the reports were subsequently deleted as they were presumably prejudicial to the conduct of the case, a couple of news stories identifying the complainant originally appeared online shortly after the case was originally filed last August. They claimed that the woman in question was a self-avowed faith-healer and clairvoyant who'd previously encouraged clients of hers to make similar allegations about John Lennon and Ozzy Osbourne as well as Dylan, notwithstanding that Lennon was already dead when his purported misdeeds took place.
I should declare my interest in this case, which is that I'm a great fan and admirer of Dylan so would prefer these allegations to be untrue. Everything about this case that's in the public domain does suggest that, IMO. Perhaps he's guilty of other stuff that may become public knowledge now that an accusation has been made against him and disposed of by the court, but that can only be judged as and when it comes to the fore.