NM - Actor Timothy Busfield arrested, 10 January 2026

[arielilane]

https://twitter.com/x/status/2013637439139566019

 

[Izzylizzy]

@0:22 defense attorney Brian Buckmeyer goes over the 200+ page document entered for the judge which appears to be trying to prove TB's innocence.
I could be wrong but it sounds like he said that the accusations against the parents have all been debunked?

 

[Izzylizzy]

Does the prosecution argue that in the first interview the boys were too afraid to admit TB touched them?
Do these recording even get played today?
imo

snip:

"On Monday, Busfield’s attorneys submitted two brief audio recordings of initial police interviews in which the children say Busfield did not touch them in private areas. The attorneys in a court filing argue that the complaint characterizes the interviews as a failure to disclose abuse, but an “unequivocal denial is materially different from a mere absence of disclosure.”

Actor Melissa Gilbert among witnesses at New Mexico detention hearing for husband Timothy Busfield

Actor Melissa Gilbert could speak Tuesday at a New Mexico detention hearing for her husband, Emmy Award-winning actor Timothy Busfield, who faces child sex abuse charges.

apnews.com

 

[LAborn]

Sidebar with Jesse Weber is one of my favorite podcasts, and sometimes he's on News Nation. This is a good comprehensive review of this case

 

[tricia]

Livestream Timothy Busfield hearing. The livestream is at the top of this thread. They will decide whether Busfield should be released

 

[Inthedetails]

Livestream Timothy Busfield hearing. The livestream is at the top of this thread. They will decide whether Busfield should be released

Update: He was granted release with restrictions not to be unsupervised with minors.

jmo

 

[tricia]

Join us at 10:30 PM Eastern. We will dig into the hearing today. It was a fascinating look into both sides of what is going to be a wild case. Plus Othram does it again! That and more tonight at 10:30 P.M. EASTERN

 

[tricia]

IN MY OPINION, this is going to be insane. The defense is going to go after the parents. Both parents have fraud convictions. Dad spent time in prison.
The prosecution laid out its case, and it seemed good. Not great but good. Then the defense presented its side.
By the way, this was a hearing to decide whether Busfield could go home or stay behind bars.
Go to about 1:23:50 in THIS VIDEO to hear the defense play a quick clip from the boy's interviews in which they say Busfield did not touch them. Then the defense goes into the details of the parents' past charges. Just rewind to listen to the whole court case. I would suggest you do that.
In myopinion...I don't know what is going to happen.
It is true that you can have crappy parents and still be abused right? It is true that the parents past behavior can be used to judge their behavior when it comes to this case.
The prosecution will argue that if the parents were going to have the kids make something up they would make their stories more dramatic. The defense will argue the parents have a history of fraud and this is a continuation of their past behavior.
I said it was going to be insane...I want to change that. It is going to be ugly. Horribly ugly. No matter what is decided, the kids are the losers.

 

[Inthedetails]

IN MY OPINION, this is going to be insane. The defense is going to go after the parents. Both parents have fraud convictions. Dad spent time in prison.
The prosecution laid out its case, and it seemed good. Not great but good. Then the defense presented its side.
By the way, this was a hearing to decide whether Busfield could go home or stay behind bars.
Go to about 1:23:50 in THIS VIDEO to hear the defense play a quick clip from the boy's interviews in which they say Busfield did not touch them. Then the defense goes into the details of the parents' past charges. Just rewind to listen to the whole court case. I would suggest you do that.
In myopinion...I don't know what is going to happen.
It is true that you can have crappy parents and still be abused right? It is true that the parents past behavior can be used to judge their behavior when it comes to this case.
The prosecution will argue that if the parents were going to have the kids make something up they would make their stories more dramatic. The defense will argue the parents have a history of fraud and this is a continuation of their past behavior.
I said it was going to be insane...I want to change that. It is going to be ugly. Horribly ugly. No matter what is decided, the kids are the losers.

I agree. It's ugly.

My impression after listening to the hearing is the state has a case but it's not super strong. And I thought the male lawyer on the defense side was better at presenting info than the prosecutor. I think it is going to be hard to get a conviction.

The witness flubbed up big time, imo, by saying he was with TB on the set 100% of the time and never saw TB tickle the kids, but TB himself admitted to tickling the kids on set. So there goes the defense that abuse couldn't happen with so many people around. But tickling isn't what he is charged with.

I also learned that MG is definitely active in defending TB - she is the one who contacted the witness to write a statement in support.

jmo

 

[MerBeach]

I’m going with the Children’s claims, and going from there.

 

[Inthedetails]

I’m going with the Children’s claims, and going from there.

I totally understand the sentiment, but the claims have to stand up in court.

jmopinion

 

[MerBeach]

I totally understand the sentiment, but the claims have to stand up in court.

jmopinion

Absolutely

 

[starlightstarbright]

The thing about the defense claims about the dodgy background of the parents. Children who come from a home that is potentially chaotic with a parent having served time in prison and preoccupied with scheming (MOO that this could characterise what family life was like) combined with parents pushing their children into showbiz and all the allowances and pressures that entails likely do create a situation where children are uniquely vulnerable to predators. These predators can see families like that coming.

To me, it’s not a convincing defense. A family can be dodgy as hell, but also children particularly vulnerable to abuse because of that. JMO

 

[ChatteringBirds]

All of this are my opinions only:

He had been accused once in the past, yet still finds it a good idea to tickle children. Many children do not like to be tickled, adults should know this. Why do they think they have a right to touch kids' bodies, or why do they want to?

He and these boys had a professional role together. His job was to act as a mentor and be sure not to cross any lines. You'd think he'd be extra vigilant after a past accusation, but he does what he wants.

What if it's a way to deny any claims later? Oh you all saw me innocently tickling them, that's all it was.

What is the real truth here? How does a jury decide guilty or not guilty? Too bad the parents allegedly aren't trustworthy people, either.

 

[Inthedetails]

The thing about the defense claims about the dodgy background of the parents. Children who come from a home that is potentially chaotic with a parent having served time in prison and preoccupied with scheming (MOO that this could characterise what family life was like) combined with parents pushing their children into showbiz and all the allowances and pressures that entails likely do create a situation where children are uniquely vulnerable to predators. These predators can see families like that coming.

To me, it’s not a convincing defense. A family can be dodgy as hell, but also children particularly vulnerable to abuse because of that. JMO

The witness said at the hearing that both parents were always on set. The mom was quiet but the dad was assertive to the point that he annoyed the witness.

The witness said the dad ordered the boys to hug him, which he found uncomfortable. He clarified he was uncomfortable with that kind of parenting, that he doesn't like forcing kids to hug someone. He preferred to high-five the boys when greeting them.

I suspect the defense will make that a point of "reasonable doubt" that TB would not have abused the children with the father on set and/or that the father set up situations that looked bad and/or the children do what their father tell them to even if they don't want to (i.e. say they were abused).

Please understand I am talking about the upcoming COURT CASE and how it might play out. I am not talking about the veracity of the boys' allegations or what actually happened.

jmopinion

 

[Curiousobserver]

IN MY OPINION, this is going to be insane. The defense is going to go after the parents. Both parents have fraud convictions. Dad spent time in prison.
The prosecution laid out its case, and it seemed good. Not great but good. Then the defense presented its side.
By the way, this was a hearing to decide whether Busfield could go home or stay behind bars.
Go to about 1:23:50 in THIS VIDEO to hear the defense play a quick clip from the boy's interviews in which they say Busfield did not touch them. Then the defense goes into the details of the parents' past charges. Just rewind to listen to the whole court case. I would suggest you do that.
In myopinion...I don't know what is going to happen.
It is true that you can have crappy parents and still be abused right? It is true that the parents past behavior can be used to judge their behavior when it comes to this case.
The prosecution will argue that if the parents were going to have the kids make something up they would make their stories more dramatic. The defense will argue the parents have a history of fraud and this is a continuation of their past behavior.
I said it was going to be insane...I want to change that. It is going to be ugly. Horribly ugly. No matter what is decided, the kids are the losers.

Obviously we all want abusers to go to jail, especially abusers of innocent children. That makes the accused really guilty until proven innocent- that is to say...if there are only two people in a room and the child says they were abused, then the burden to prove that didn't happen is in every practical sense on the accused. A jury will side with the child almost every time. The reasonable doubt standard is skewed to one side.

After hearing the video last night I have to say- in the absence of physical evidence of abuse, a jury should find him innocent.

Boys never reported this contemporaneously, the boys definitively denied any touching in a police interview, there are no witnesses, the window for abuse was very restricted (the boys were not frequently alone with Timothy), the parents have a history of fraud, and there is a strong motive for the parents to have coached the children to think this is what happened. Even the judge categorized the evidence as neutral- as likely as not that this actually happened.

I don't know if he did or if he didn't, but I don't think people should go to jail on this sort of evidence (or lack of it).