Melissa Gilbert’s husband, Timothy Busfield, facing warrant for child sex abuse

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Is it common to go from being a "sex pest" (British term) to 16-25 yo women since the 90s, to 7 yo boys when he's over 60? I just haven't read about that.

It seems abusers have their preference - adults and teenagers past puberty OR pre-pubescent youth. And it seems most abusers stick with female or male, depending on their adult orientation.

Whatever the outcome, I hope there is a recognition that tickling is not fun or playful. No kid likes to be tickled on and on and on. The laughing is involuntary and the kid has no power or voice to make the adult give it up already.

The other outcome should be to make sure productions are following the safety rules that are already in place. If the tutor or guardian is supposed to watch them, if the filming moves to another warehouse on the set, the guardian follows the kids. And if the kids are separated, one out of eyesight of the other, then 2 guardians must be hired. What can Hollywood do to make sure these safety parameters are actually followed?

And no off-set visiting between minors and adults on the production (or even between an 8 yo and a 17 yo). There is no way I would allow my child to be without me in this environment. If both parents need to keep working, then the kids don't need to be child actors.

16 year olds aren’t “women.” They are underage. Yuck.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is it common to go from being a "sex pest" (British term) to 16-25 yo women since the 90s, to 7 yo boys when he's over 60? I just haven't read about that.

It seems abusers have their preference - adults and teenagers past puberty OR pre-pubescent youth. And it seems most abusers stick with female or male, depending on their adult orientation.

Whatever the outcome, I hope there is a recognition that tickling is not fun or playful. No kid likes to be tickled on and on and on. The laughing is involuntary and the kid has no power or voice to make the adult give it up already.

The other outcome should be to make sure productions are following the safety rules that are already in place. If the tutor or guardian is supposed to watch them, if the filming moves to another warehouse on the set, the guardian follows the kids. And if the kids are separated, one out of eyesight of the other, then 2 guardians must be hired. What can Hollywood do to make sure these safety parameters are actually followed?

And no off-set visiting between minors and adults on the production (or even between an 8 yo and a 17 yo). There is no way I would allow my child to be without me in this environment. If both parents need to keep working, then the kids don't need to be child actors.

16 year olds aren’t “women.” They are underage. Yuck.

OK, I agree that assaulting 16 yo girls is worse than assaulting 25 yo women. But both are bad?

My point stands, does someone go from assaulting post puberty teens and women to suddenly switching to 7 yo boys? I just haven't heard about that. Is this typical or very unusual?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is it common to go from being a "sex pest" (British term) to 16-25 yo women since the 90s, to 7 yo boys when he's over 60? I just haven't read about that.

It seems abusers have their preference - adults and teenagers past puberty OR pre-pubescent youth. And it seems most abusers stick with female or male, depending on their adult orientation.

Whatever the outcome, I hope there is a recognition that tickling is not fun or playful. No kid likes to be tickled on and on and on. The laughing is involuntary and the kid has no power or voice to make the adult give it up already.

The other outcome should be to make sure productions are following the safety rules that are already in place. If the tutor or guardian is supposed to watch them, if the filming moves to another warehouse on the set, the guardian follows the kids. And if the kids are separated, one out of eyesight of the other, then 2 guardians must be hired. What can Hollywood do to make sure these safety parameters are actually followed?

And no off-set visiting between minors and adults on the production (or even between an 8 yo and a 17 yo). There is no way I would allow my child to be without me in this environment. If both parents need to keep working, then the kids don't need to be child actors.

16 year olds aren’t “women.” They are underage. Yuck.

OK, I agree that assaulting 16 yo girls is worse than assaulting 25 yo women. But both are bad?

My point stands, does someone go from assaulting post puberty teens and women to suddenly switching to 7 yo boys? I just haven't heard about that. Is this typical or very unusual?

I have no idea and it really doesn’t matter. Whether it’s typical or not has no bearing on the facts of the case.

[Anonymous]

Is it typical for directors to tickle children on set to “get them ready for acting” despite a no touching rule?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why would a grown man (the boss) ever think it’s ok to tickle someone else’s 10 year old children? Disgusting.

Can anyone answer this? Because Timothy admitted to doing just that.

The answer is it’s not ok.

It’s funny - all the Busfield defenders are now oddly quiet. Have they suddenly realized tickling kids on set is gross, weird and inappropriate?

Sorry - who, exactly, has defended this guy? You keep saying that and you sound idiotic. Several of us have simply said we’re waiting for all the facts to be confirmed before making a judgement call. Too bad there are still vultures like you who insist all men all guilty from the get go.

It’s sounding very likely that he did indeed do something, especially with his prior history, but as another poster said, this doesn’t fit with his previous SA accusations. And there are other issues at play, namely what the mother allegedly said about getting revenge. So the normal people here will wait on confirmation of all the charges.

The people who said the timeline is fishy and the parents wanted revenge are idiotic. I believe children.

Did you talk to the children?

You just have to read the affidavit to get it. He admitted to tickling the kids on set to get them ready for acting. He bought them gifts off set. Not normal behavior and definitely grooming.

I don't think you understand the meaning of the word "definitely."

Seriously - the air of certainty some of you project without having any firsthand knowledge is pretty astounding. You heard “grooming” one time on a Dateline episode and now you’re an SME.

Since then, every unfamiliar male you encounter that you don’t find attractive is “definitely” more dangerous than a bear in the woods. Definitely. Absolutely.

Wait until you find out he gave gifts off set to the entire cast and crew. And wait until you found out that tickling isn’t a Class 3 felony … anywhere.

Having said all that, if he engaged in any conduct that violated the law, string him up for all I care. I just wouldn’t want to ever find the PP on a jury of any kind. Ready to find guilty on the charges before the opening statements are even made! Good grief.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why would a grown man (the boss) ever think it’s ok to tickle someone else’s 10 year old children? Disgusting.

Can anyone answer this? Because Timothy admitted to doing just that.

The answer is it’s not ok.

It’s funny - all the Busfield defenders are now oddly quiet. Have they suddenly realized tickling kids on set is gross, weird and inappropriate?

Sorry - who, exactly, has defended this guy? You keep saying that and you sound idiotic. Several of us have simply said we’re waiting for all the facts to be confirmed before making a judgement call. Too bad there are still vultures like you who insist all men all guilty from the get go.

It’s sounding very likely that he did indeed do something, especially with his prior history, but as another poster said, this doesn’t fit with his previous SA accusations. And there are other issues at play, namely what the mother allegedly said about getting revenge. So the normal people here will wait on confirmation of all the charges.

The people who said the timeline is fishy and the parents wanted revenge are idiotic. I believe children.

Did you talk to the children?

You just have to read the affidavit to get it. He admitted to tickling the kids on set to get them ready for acting. He bought them gifts off set. Not normal behavior and definitely grooming.

I don't think you understand the meaning of the word "definitely."

Seriously - the air of certainty some of you project without having any firsthand knowledge is pretty astounding. You heard “grooming” one time on a Dateline episode and now you’re an SME.

Since then, every unfamiliar male you encounter that you don’t find attractive is “definitely” more dangerous than a bear in the woods. Definitely. Absolutely.

Wait until you find out he gave gifts off set to the entire cast and crew. And wait until you found out that tickling isn’t a Class 3 felony … anywhere.

Having said all that, if he engaged in any conduct that violated the law, string him up for all I care. I just wouldn’t want to ever find the PP on a jury of any kind. Ready to find guilty on the charges before the opening statements are even made! Good grief.

+1. The comments here assuming guilt are disturbing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why would a grown man (the boss) ever think it’s ok to tickle someone else’s 10 year old children? Disgusting.

Can anyone answer this? Because Timothy admitted to doing just that.

The answer is it’s not ok.

It’s funny - all the Busfield defenders are now oddly quiet. Have they suddenly realized tickling kids on set is gross, weird and inappropriate?

Sorry - who, exactly, has defended this guy? You keep saying that and you sound idiotic. Several of us have simply said we’re waiting for all the facts to be confirmed before making a judgement call. Too bad there are still vultures like you who insist all men all guilty from the get go.

It’s sounding very likely that he did indeed do something, especially with his prior history, but as another poster said, this doesn’t fit with his previous SA accusations. And there are other issues at play, namely what the mother allegedly said about getting revenge. So the normal people here will wait on confirmation of all the charges.

The people who said the timeline is fishy and the parents wanted revenge are idiotic. I believe children.

Did you talk to the children?

You just have to read the affidavit to get it. He admitted to tickling the kids on set to get them ready for acting. He bought them gifts off set. Not normal behavior and definitely grooming.

I don't think you understand the meaning of the word "definitely."

Seriously - the air of certainty some of you project without having any firsthand knowledge is pretty astounding. You heard “grooming” one time on a Dateline episode and now you’re an SME.

Since then, every unfamiliar male you encounter that you don’t find attractive is “definitely” more dangerous than a bear in the woods. Definitely. Absolutely.

Wait until you find out he gave gifts off set to the entire cast and crew. And wait until you found out that tickling isn’t a Class 3 felony … anywhere.

Having said all that, if he engaged in any conduct that violated the law, string him up for all I care. I just wouldn’t want to ever find the PP on a jury of any kind. Ready to find guilty on the charges before the opening statements are even made! Good grief.

You are disgusting.

NP here. Facts and logic are not disgusting. Ever. No one should be tried by the court of public opinion and yet that’s what you’re doing. How are you not embarrassed to be you?

The fact is he tickled kids on set when the rule is no touching on set. And you’re defending this. Wow.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why would a grown man (the boss) ever think it’s ok to tickle someone else’s 10 year old children? Disgusting.

Can anyone answer this? Because Timothy admitted to doing just that.

The answer is it’s not ok.

It’s funny - all the Busfield defenders are now oddly quiet. Have they suddenly realized tickling kids on set is gross, weird and inappropriate?

Sorry - who, exactly, has defended this guy? You keep saying that and you sound idiotic. Several of us have simply said we’re waiting for all the facts to be confirmed before making a judgement call. Too bad there are still vultures like you who insist all men all guilty from the get go.

It’s sounding very likely that he did indeed do something, especially with his prior history, but as another poster said, this doesn’t fit with his previous SA accusations. And there are other issues at play, namely what the mother allegedly said about getting revenge. So the normal people here will wait on confirmation of all the charges.

The people who said the timeline is fishy and the parents wanted revenge are idiotic. I believe children.

Did you talk to the children?

You just have to read the affidavit to get it. He admitted to tickling the kids on set to get them ready for acting. He bought them gifts off set. Not normal behavior and definitely grooming.

I don't think you understand the meaning of the word "definitely."

Seriously - the air of certainty some of you project without having any firsthand knowledge is pretty astounding. You heard “grooming” one time on a Dateline episode and now you’re an SME.

Since then, every unfamiliar male you encounter that you don’t find attractive is “definitely” more dangerous than a bear in the woods. Definitely. Absolutely.

Wait until you find out he gave gifts off set to the entire cast and crew. And wait until you found out that tickling isn’t a Class 3 felony … anywhere.

Having said all that, if he engaged in any conduct that violated the law, string him up for all I care. I just wouldn’t want to ever find the PP on a jury of any kind. Ready to find guilty on the charges before the opening statements are even made! Good grief.

+1. The comments here assuming guilt are disturbing.

No what’s disturbing are the allegations against Busfield and the affidavit.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Is it typical for directors to tickle children on set to “get them ready for acting” despite a no touching rule?

Anyone?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:While I love Melissa Gilbert, she must have a bad picker. No way would I marry someone with any sort of sexual assault allegation against them.
Not sure if the current situation is true, but seriously, if you've been in trouble with this kind of thing before, why even put yourself in that position?

She does have a bad picker. This is also her third marriage and her first two husbands were deadbeats.

On a side note, I find story about their marriage depressing in other ways. She owes a lot in back taxes and they seem like they're barely eking out a living as their careers arw pretty much over. They moved to a cheaper state to live in for a while because of money problems Ohio maybe and maybe it was his home state?) and she was going to run for political office but pulled out. Then they moved to upstate New York into a tiny cabin that looks barely weatherized. There was an article about it in the NY Times. The house looked really shabby. They put a positive spin on it like it was all DIY cool country living on a dime but it looked like plain old desperation. Things weren't going well for them before this.

+1. They moved to Michigan for a while, not Ohio, but otherwise spot on. I just read the article about their DIY house in New York. The spin was old-school-prairie-living, but I found it depressing as well.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is it typical for directors to tickle children on set to “get them ready for acting” despite a no touching rule?

Anyone?

TB has directed a ton of television in the last couple of decades. I was curious how many episodes had children cast in them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why would a grown man (the boss) ever think it’s ok to tickle someone else’s 10 year old children? Disgusting.

Can anyone answer this? Because Timothy admitted to doing just that.

The answer is it’s not ok.

It’s funny - all the Busfield defenders are now oddly quiet. Have they suddenly realized tickling kids on set is gross, weird and inappropriate?

Sorry - who, exactly, has defended this guy? You keep saying that and you sound idiotic. Several of us have simply said we’re waiting for all the facts to be confirmed before making a judgement call. Too bad there are still vultures like you who insist all men all guilty from the get go.

It’s sounding very likely that he did indeed do something, especially with his prior history, but as another poster said, this doesn’t fit with his previous SA accusations. And there are other issues at play, namely what the mother allegedly said about getting revenge. So the normal people here will wait on confirmation of all the charges.

The people who said the timeline is fishy and the parents wanted revenge are idiotic. I believe children.

Did you talk to the children?

You just have to read the affidavit to get it. He admitted to tickling the kids on set to get them ready for acting. He bought them gifts off set. Not normal behavior and definitely grooming.

I don't think you understand the meaning of the word "definitely."

Seriously - the air of certainty some of you project without having any firsthand knowledge is pretty astounding. You heard “grooming” one time on a Dateline episode and now you’re an SME.

Since then, every unfamiliar male you encounter that you don’t find attractive is “definitely” more dangerous than a bear in the woods. Definitely. Absolutely.

Wait until you find out he gave gifts off set to the entire cast and crew. And wait until you found out that tickling isn’t a Class 3 felony … anywhere.

Having said all that, if he engaged in any conduct that violated the law, string him up for all I care. I just wouldn’t want to ever find the PP on a jury of any kind. Ready to find guilty on the charges before the opening statements are even made! Good grief.

+1. The comments here assuming guilt are disturbing.

No what’s disturbing are the allegations against Busfield and the affidavit.

Yes, the affidavit is disturbing. There was either SA or the parents coached their kids as retribution for being fired. We don't know which one, but it is disturbing either way.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why would a grown man (the boss) ever think it’s ok to tickle someone else’s 10 year old children? Disgusting.

Can anyone answer this? Because Timothy admitted to doing just that.

The answer is it’s not ok.

It’s funny - all the Busfield defenders are now oddly quiet. Have they suddenly realized tickling kids on set is gross, weird and inappropriate?

Sorry - who, exactly, has defended this guy? You keep saying that and you sound idiotic. Several of us have simply said we’re waiting for all the facts to be confirmed before making a judgement call. Too bad there are still vultures like you who insist all men all guilty from the get go.

It’s sounding very likely that he did indeed do something, especially with his prior history, but as another poster said, this doesn’t fit with his previous SA accusations. And there are other issues at play, namely what the mother allegedly said about getting revenge. So the normal people here will wait on confirmation of all the charges.

The people who said the timeline is fishy and the parents wanted revenge are idiotic. I believe children.

Did you talk to the children?

You just have to read the affidavit to get it. He admitted to tickling the kids on set to get them ready for acting. He bought them gifts off set. Not normal behavior and definitely grooming.

I don't think you understand the meaning of the word "definitely."

Seriously - the air of certainty some of you project without having any firsthand knowledge is pretty astounding. You heard “grooming” one time on a Dateline episode and now you’re an SME.

Since then, every unfamiliar male you encounter that you don’t find attractive is “definitely” more dangerous than a bear in the woods. Definitely. Absolutely.

Wait until you find out he gave gifts off set to the entire cast and crew. And wait until you found out that tickling isn’t a Class 3 felony … anywhere.

Having said all that, if he engaged in any conduct that violated the law, string him up for all I care. I just wouldn’t want to ever find the PP on a jury of any kind. Ready to find guilty on the charges before the opening statements are even made! Good grief.

You are disgusting.

NP here. Facts and logic are not disgusting. Ever. No one should be tried by the court of public opinion and yet that’s what you’re doing. How are you not embarrassed to be you?

Actual NP here. You and that thing posting above are disgusting. Adults who exult in anonymity here to defend chiseling away at the boundaries children try to establish are enabling abuse or are abusing themselves. Rot in hell. You’ll get caught eventually.

You're just demonstrating the outrageousness of your position by wildly inferring guilt without proof. Now someone merely pointing out limitations in facts is apparently sufficient evidence of guilt of SA to you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why would a grown man (the boss) ever think it’s ok to tickle someone else’s 10 year old children? Disgusting.

Can anyone answer this? Because Timothy admitted to doing just that.

The answer is it’s not ok.

It’s funny - all the Busfield defenders are now oddly quiet. Have they suddenly realized tickling kids on set is gross, weird and inappropriate?

Sorry - who, exactly, has defended this guy? You keep saying that and you sound idiotic. Several of us have simply said we’re waiting for all the facts to be confirmed before making a judgement call. Too bad there are still vultures like you who insist all men all guilty from the get go.

It’s sounding very likely that he did indeed do something, especially with his prior history, but as another poster said, this doesn’t fit with his previous SA accusations. And there are other issues at play, namely what the mother allegedly said about getting revenge. So the normal people here will wait on confirmation of all the charges.

The people who said the timeline is fishy and the parents wanted revenge are idiotic. I believe children.

Did you talk to the children?

You just have to read the affidavit to get it. He admitted to tickling the kids on set to get them ready for acting. He bought them gifts off set. Not normal behavior and definitely grooming.

I don't think you understand the meaning of the word "definitely."

Seriously - the air of certainty some of you project without having any firsthand knowledge is pretty astounding. You heard “grooming” one time on a Dateline episode and now you’re an SME.

Since then, every unfamiliar male you encounter that you don’t find attractive is “definitely” more dangerous than a bear in the woods. Definitely. Absolutely.

Wait until you find out he gave gifts off set to the entire cast and crew. And wait until you found out that tickling isn’t a Class 3 felony … anywhere.

Having said all that, if he engaged in any conduct that violated the law, string him up for all I care. I just wouldn’t want to ever find the PP on a jury of any kind. Ready to find guilty on the charges before the opening statements are even made! Good grief.

You are disgusting.

NP here. Facts and logic are not disgusting. Ever. No one should be tried by the court of public opinion and yet that’s what you’re doing. How are you not embarrassed to be you?

Actual NP here. You and that thing posting above are disgusting. Adults who exult in anonymity here to defend chiseling away at the boundaries children try to establish are enabling abuse or are abusing themselves. Rot in hell. You’ll get caught eventually.

You're just demonstrating the outrageousness of your position by wildly inferring guilt without proof. Now someone merely pointing out limitations in facts is apparently sufficient evidence of guilt of SA to you.

Wildly inferring or noting that enough evidence substantiates an arrest warrant? Tomato tomatoh, right, counselor?

You’re a foul fkn pig. Continue to suffer, it’s magnificent. Bye bye.

You're clearly not taking the position: "These are really serious accusations that need to be investigated further." You've already decided he's guilty.

[Anonymous]

Don't get the "bear in the woods" analogy mixed up in this. That's about the average man and women's perception of him. Not about this particular man who is not average.

Is he guilty or not, I haven't posted in several pages, but I don't know and I've said that in this thread.

But it's a whole different argument than the "bear or man" argument.