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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I haven’t see a ton of people flooding the news with new allegations. With Weinstein, every day new women were coming forward. This time it’s just the child actors who trained to say and do what they’re told to say and do, and a 16 yr old from what, 10-15-20 years ago? Where are all the other victims if this is a long term pattern?

There are two victims, one from a while ago (settlement does not suggest innocence) and one from a few years ago. These are credible, especially with the father's involvement and Busfield begging him not to call the authorities. He'll be subpoenaed in this case, no doubt, as will the young woman.

Guess what, there are men in the business with ZERO accusations, much less two that establish a pattern.

DP. Yes, there are two other allegations which I'm sure were true. But you're kidding yourself if you think these con artist parents weren't aware of those past allegations and very much factored them into their scheme - especially since the mother *stated* she wanted revenge on him. I mean, c'mon man. Pull yourself together and look at the actual facts here.

That is hearsay. It has not been established as a fact that the mother said this. Someone on set reported that she said something similar to that. We do not know if that was indeed said though.

[Anonymous]

It’ll be interesting to see what happens in court.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It’ll be interesting to see what happens in court.

Yes. Under oath, etc. That's what I'll wait for.

[Anonymous]

His wife really seems to have his back.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:His wife really seems to have his back.

If I believed my husband was innocent, I would too.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://deadline.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/01/2026.1.16-Busfield-Response-pages-deleted-and-watermarked.pdf

tl/dr: Team Pitchfork probably on suicide watch

How is the case going forward based on what is presented in this document? Not only the father was disbarred for scamming people, the mother did too including writing bad checks to casinos.

Multiple people stated that there was no way he was ever alone with any kids as there were way too many people constantly on the set, teachers following the kids, the alleged location of the abuse was never vacant with no one around, etc.

Both the first police investigation and the independent attorney paid by WB foubd no abuse and the boys stayed no abuse happened.

The prosecutor is quoted as saying in court yesterday, essentially, “well, abuse can occur in plain sight, too” …

Seriously. That was her response when the defense presented an array of witness statements that supported the defense position that Busfield was never even alone with the complainants, which appears to undermine the prosecution’s core theory of the case.

Nevertheless, the defense response to the state’s effort to deny his release was a massive broadside in what is starting to look like a very questionable case.

Look, abuse is a horrific trauma when it has actually occurred. I’m not saying I’m certain it didn’t occur here.

But what I am saying is that this appears to be a garden variety shakedown by a very shady family, the criminal case appears severely damaged before it even has a chance to get its sea legs, and all of the posters (maybe it was just one poster?) in this thread who were ready to execute this guy before he even had a chance to deny the claims made against him? They should be ashamed of themselves for convicting this guy in the court of public opinion, for attacking other posters for supporting due process, and for lashing out at those posters personally. There’s enough egg on their face(s) right now to last a lifetime. Just stop.

What are you on? No one is talking about execution here. And we are allowed to have opinions on the case and we can convict him in the court of public opinion if we damn well want to. Nothing of what you wrote will convince me this guy is innocent.

Good grief, show us on the doll where Uncle Tim touched you.

On a slightly more serious note, you were invited to stop - so I’m not going to feel bad at all watching this unfold and mocking you for your crazed rush to judgement the entire way.

I don’t feel bad at all watching you make an utter fool of yourself to go out of your way to defend a creep and freak out over the “lynch mob” on this thread. It’s actually comical. We all know you are part of his camp. You’re probably related to him.

I'm not the above PP but if anyone has issues here, it's you. You have contorted yourself repeatedly to insist that these allegations are true, even in light of ALL of this evidence that the parents are total scam artists. And the parents are the ones who made the allegations. I'm with the PP. The only person making an utter fool of yourself in this rabid rush to judgment is you.

I did not write the post you are responding to - but you are lying. There have not been posts saying “he’s so obviously guilty” “fry him” “he’s been rumored to F kids for decades.” None. The allegations are upsetting, and Busfield seemed to be running from arrest.

It’s wholly natural for people to be disgusted, in particular when his sexually unsavory history as far as allegations of past inappropriate behaviors are discussed. I truly do not understand why some posters are so defensive of him. No one has made comments about taking him out or burning down his house if the state fails to convict him.

Um, what? I never said any of the bolded. Exaggerate much? I said you keep insisting these allegations are true - which is a fact, you do. You sneer at anyone suggesting we take a moment and consider all of the facts surrounding the allegations. And now we're learning that the past allegation with the 16 yr old girl was probably fabricated by another con artist parent. It's strange that you're completely unwilling to acknowledge why there are some serious doubts to consider here.

No we are not “learning” that. That is your opinion. Why aren’t you letting it play out in court? Why are you so quick to dismiss all the allegations?

If the reports posted upthread are true, then that is exactly what happened. Of course none of us know anything for sure which is why I’ll be interested to see what comes out at the trial, what is verified, and what was fabricated. Why are you so quick to dismiss anything that contradicts the allegations?

[Anonymous]

I said this 20 pages ago, but I remain confused as to why people think that a history of being sketchy with (or perhaps worse, depending on what characterization is correct) post-pubescent teenage girls makes it more likely he engaged in full on pedophilia with boys.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I said this 20 pages ago, but I remain confused as to why people think that a history of being sketchy with (or perhaps worse, depending on what characterization is correct) post-pubescent teenage girls makes it more likely he engaged in full on pedophilia with boys.

+1

There’s probably research on pedophiles staying in a lane.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I said this 20 pages ago, but I remain confused as to why people think that a history of being sketchy with (or perhaps worse, depending on what characterization is correct) post-pubescent teenage girls makes it more likely he engaged in full on pedophilia with boys.

Logic and reason left the chat a while back. Lol

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I said this 20 pages ago, but I remain confused as to why people think that a history of being sketchy with (or perhaps worse, depending on what characterization is correct) post-pubescent teenage girls makes it more likely he engaged in full on pedophilia with boys.

+1

There’s probably research on pedophiles staying in a lane.

I think it has been debunked that it’s as cut and dried as all of them stick to a certain age/sex etc., just like it used to be bedrock belief that serial killers never stop, but now we know that’s not true.

IDK if Busfield is guilty of the current charges, but the long history including the payout is enough for me to conclude that he’s a perpetrator.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I said this 20 pages ago, but I remain confused as to why people think that a history of being sketchy with (or perhaps worse, depending on what characterization is correct) post-pubescent teenage girls makes it more likely he engaged in full on pedophilia with boys.

And similarly, why would committing mail and wire fraud make it more likely that someone would then coach their kids to lie about unwanted touching?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I said this 20 pages ago, but I remain confused as to why people think that a history of being sketchy with (or perhaps worse, depending on what characterization is correct) post-pubescent teenage girls makes it more likely he engaged in full on pedophilia with boys.

And similarly, why would committing mail and wire fraud make it more likely that someone would then coach their kids to lie about unwanted touching?

Were the boys lying the first time when they said it didn't happen or the 2nd time when they said it actually did? What should people believe if they want to believe children?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I said this 20 pages ago, but I remain confused as to why people think that a history of being sketchy with (or perhaps worse, depending on what characterization is correct) post-pubescent teenage girls makes it more likely he engaged in full on pedophilia with boys.

And similarly, why would committing mail and wire fraud make it more likely that someone would then coach their kids to lie about unwanted touching?

See, it’s not that I think pedophiles always stay in their lane. It’s possible someone who is sketchy with post-pubescent teenage girls is also a pedophile. But more likely? That they are not only a true pedophile but a same sex pedophile? That seems unlikely. And that’s what people are claiming… that he has a history of sexual misconduct that makes this more likely. Statistically, that seems unlikely to me.

On the other hand, people who are willing to lie and victimize people for money? Yup, more likely to be willing to lie and victimize people for money. That completely tracks for me.

[Anonymous]

Hi, former prosecutor of child sex crimes with specialized training and experience here again, catching up with the conversation and to share some thoughts on comments I’ve read.

First let’s start by acknowledging that there are no hard and fast rules in life - everything is grey.

That said we do have a body of knowledge about offenders against children and a number of generalizations which tend to hold true.

Something many lay folks don’t understand is that not all offenders against children are pedophiles.

Pedophilia is a paraphilia and as such it has certain characteristics primary of which is that the pedophile has primary attraction to prepubescent children and in some cases sole attraction to children such that they don’t engage in any other sexual activity. Some pedophiles never act on their attraction and remain celibate to avoid confrontation with acting out the paraphilia and potentially encountering legal consequences and out of concern (yes, it’s true) for harming children.

A larger number of predators who offend against children are what we call opportunistic sexual predators - they assault children not because they have any particular interest in children but because they have sexual impulses they wish to fulfill and children are easier to groom and victimize than adults. Adults will often fight back and are more likely to report assaults to law enforcement whilst children are very unlikely to do either. When a predator is opportunistic it is less likely they will have a specific age range or gender they are compelled to offend against.

With regard to the issue of settlements to resolve accusations of sexual abuse; I think it is dangerous to assume settlements are a sign of culpability. We all know that a great many defendants in criminal cases enter into plea agreements while maintaining innocence because the plea agreement preserves some portion of their life with potential to be free or guarantee to be free rather than standing on principle and facing the possibility of a certain life in prison. We all know that innocent people get wrongfully convicted because hundreds of them have been exonerated and released from prison in recent decades including 200+ from death row. A settlement on allegations that could be totally destructive of reputation and career - and potentially open one to criminal charges- is a way to resolve the risk with the least harm and does not necessarily mean the party seeking NDA and paying out is actually guilty.

Finally with regard to false allegations of child sex abuse. They are rare, but they do occur. The circumstances surrounding most such cases include highly volatile/contentious custody cases, cases where there is financial or retributive motive, and cases involving mental illness/disordered personality re: the victim.

Children are suggestible and the younger they are the more suggestible they are. This is why we spent years developing best practices in the forensic interviewing of children by individuals who are specifically trained in this process and in settings designed to protect against suggestive behavior by interviewers and guardians alike.

Some of you may be old enough to recall the famous California case in the 80s where a family of daycare providers were prosecuted for systemic sexual abuse and torture of dozens of children, all of which later proved to be untrue (juries refused to convict) and which proved to be the fruit of suggestive questioning by parents and law enforcement agents alike. There were other cases in that same vein across the country it was the child abuse equivalent of satanic panic - some resulted in convictions and in most cases lives were ruined and it was definitely a stain on our justice system. My point being that kids can be coaxed into believing what they think their parents want to hear and that psychological reality hasn’t changed even though LEO best practices do much to guard against.

I’m no big fan of Busfield but I would encourage people to allow due process to happen here. As I said before my mind is open and I wouldn’t form a strong opinion without access to the case file and the opportunity to asses the alleged victims with my own gut.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I said this 20 pages ago, but I remain confused as to why people think that a history of being sketchy with (or perhaps worse, depending on what characterization is correct) post-pubescent teenage girls makes it more likely he engaged in full on pedophilia with boys.

And similarly, why would committing mail and wire fraud make it more likely that someone would then coach their kids to lie about unwanted touching?

Do you not understand that the purpose of fraud is to exact a payout? If they did coach the kids to lie, it was obviously so that they could sue TB and come away with millions in a settlement.