Law&Crime Sidebar - New Evidence Shakes Up Timothy Busfield's Sex Crimes Case

Episode Date: January 21, 2026

New audio has been released of actor Timothy Busfield's child accuser denying sexual abuse allegations, just as Busfield's defense team launches an explosive attack on the accuser's parents. Law&Crime’s Jesse Weber and criminal defense attorney John Day dive into the bombshell 200-page court filing, the counter-claims of grooming, and the severe career fallout for the “West Wing” alum.PLEASE SUPPORT THE SHOW: 👉 Grab your free seat to the 2-Day AI Mastermind: https://link.outskill.com/LAWCRIMEJAN4🔐 100% Discount for the first 1000 people💥 Dive deep into AI and Learn Automations, Build AI Agents, Make videos & images – all for free!🎁  Bonuses worth $5100+ if you join and attendHOST:Jesse Weber: https://twitter.com/jessecordweberLAW&CRIME SIDEBAR PRODUCTION:YouTube Management - Bobby SzokeVideo Editing - Michael Deininger, Christina O'Shea, Alex Ciccarone, & Jay CruzScript Writing & Producing - Savannah Williamson & Juliana BattagliaGuest Booking - Alyssa Fisher & Diane KayeSocial Media Management - Vanessa BeinSTAY UP-TO-DATE WITH THE LAW&CRIME NETWORK:Watch Law&Crime Network on YouTubeTV: https://bit.ly/3td2e3yWhere To Watch Law&Crime Network: https://bit.ly/3akxLK5Sign Up For Law&Crime's Daily Newsletter: https://bit.ly/LawandCrimeNewsletterRead Fascinating Articles From Law&Crime Network: https://bit.ly/3td2IqoLAW&CRIME NETWORK SOCIAL MEDIA:Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/lawandcrimeTwitter: https://twitter.com/LawCrimeNetworkFacebook: https://www.facebook.com/lawandcrimeTwitch: https://www.twitch.tv/lawandcrimenetworkTikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@lawandcrimeSee Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

And you know what's right and wrong, right? You know where people can't touch where people can't do. Yeah, you know that, right? Does Tim ever do that? No, he's never to touch me. Never touched you? Yeah. In the case of actor Timothy Busfield, who's been accused of child sexual abuse,

this is the new audio of one of the child accusers initially claiming that Busfield didn't sexually abuse him. Coupling that with Busfield's new court appearance where he has been fighting to be released from jail ahead of trial, there is clearly a lot to break down right now. Welcome to Sidebar, presented by Law and Crime. I'm Jesse Weber. All right, before we get into this, look, it's January,

and I will tell you the smartest people are mastering the skill that matters most of this year in 2026. What am I talking about AI? AI is going to be at its peak in 2026, and this is your last chance to get on the AI ship. What am I talking about? Outskill. Outskill is the first ever AI-focused educational platform for AI learning.

They are hosting a two-day AI master. mastermind training live this Saturday and Sunday, 10 a.m. to 7 p.m. Eastern. And right now is the perfect time to join because you can get in free for their new year upskilling fest. This is a 16-hour AI training that has already built 10 million plus AI professionals across all industries. And by the way, is rated 4.9 stars on Trust Pilot. You're going to learn to build AI agents that plan, write and execute for you, automate workflows, connect tools like sheets and email to great systems, save hours every week and get a boost at work. You are going to learn to also profit from these skills. People from this training have launched AI services that bring in two to

$3,000 a week. By the way, you're also going to get the AI prompt Bible, the AI profit roadmap, our AI toolkit builder, and the 2026 AI Survival Hackbook. This is a guide of upcoming AI ships and steps to take to be prepared. Seats are limited to use the link in our description to join, plus join our WhatsApp community to stay updated. Big day for actor and director Timothy Busfield, appearing in New Mexico court for a hearing to determine whether or not he will be released pending trial on child sexual abuse charges, but the 68-year-old has been charged with two counts of criminal sexual contact with a minor and one count of child abuse for allegedly inappropriately touching two 11-year-old twin child actors, boys on the set of the Fox series The Cleaning

Lady from a few years ago. And this is, by the way, where he served as executive producer and director. One of the boys claims that he touched his private areas, according to a therapist or according to therapist notes this boy has been diagnosed with PTSD and anxiety. In fact, according to a 13-page arrest warned, the boy had, quote, nightmares about the director touching him and waking up scared. And so when it came time to determine whether or not Timothy Busfield would be released pending trial, here's what happened. Now, to be clear at the time of this recording, they haven't made a decision yet in terms of if he's going to be released from jail pending trial. But just to give you an idea, here's a snippet.

of what one of the prosecutors had to say about Timothy Busfield. The state is requesting that this court find the defendant dangerous and that there are no conditions of release that this court can impose to secure the safety of this community. Pre-trial detention is not a credibility trial. It's not a civil damages dispute, nor is it the studio's internal investigation. It's whether the defendant is dangerous and if the court can impose conditions

to secure the safety of the community. Every aspect of the state's case is flawed. Every aspect of the state's case is questionable. I don't need to tell the court this, but my client is presumed innocent. As he sits here today, he is an innocent man. And I have significant concerns about the prosecution talking as if he has already been convicted.

She referred to the people who wrote letters of support. She said, quote, they don't believe when victims come forward. It's our legal system that starts from the position of saying, we don't believe. It must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. The question before the court today is, is the court going to hold Mr. Busfield in custody pending the trial in this matter, if we ever get that? far. There has not yet been an indictment. It wasn't simply that the children did not disclose sexual abuse. They flat out denied it. They said, no, it didn't happen. The fact is that the criminal complaint in this case is slanted. It is slanted to bolster the state's case and omit

exculpatory evidence. Now, here's what I want to talk about. I want to put all of this into context, because before that hearing came up, before that decision was made, there is a lot about this case that just came out, a lot to talk about since our last episode of Sidebar. Because this one, I have to tell you, is not so black and white. This one feels a little different, because I'll start with this. This just came out. Originally, the boys were interviewed by authorities in November of 2024. This is when police were called to the University of New Mexico Hospital.

The allegation was the boys were groomed by Timothy Busfield, who they apparently called Uncle Tim. that he would tickle them talking maybe seven or eight years old. But now this is important. They initially denied that anything sexual happened. And that is important because just now, Busfield, as part of his push to be released from jail pending trial, he had these audio tapes of the interview released. And I want you to take a listen. So you know what's right and wrong, right?

Yeah. You don't know anyone could touch your private areas? Yeah, but he doesn't touch them. Doesn't touch your private parts. Okay. And you know what's right and wrong, right? You know where people can't touch where people can't do. Yeah, you know that, right?

Does Tim ever do that? No, he's never to touch me. Never touched you? Yeah. And we're going to talk about that. Okay, we're going to talk about that. But to be clear, let's be clear about something. Victims or alleged victims, there are times they will first deny being abused.

They may say it never happened. There's a number of reasons that can happen. And they might not mention it and then come forward months later, days later, years later, that happens. But there is two parts of this, right? It does go to credibility. There could be a situation where they're not telling the truth and there might be motivating factors and that's what we're going to get into. But even so, I mean, this has to be considered. This has to be considered because I have to get into a lot of the things that Busfield has been bringing up. You know, since there was no further evidence of sexual contact back in 2024, the investigation really didn't go anywhere.

That was until October of 2025. That's when things changed because the boy's mother apparently filed a report against Busfield with CPS, Child Protective Services. And this is when one of the boys then claimed that Busfield did in fact touch his private area over his clothes and was, quote, afraid to tell anyone because Tim was the director and he feared Tim would get mad at him. So after conducting these interviews and reportedly talking to some members of the cleaning lady production crew, an investigator in this case secured an arrest warrant. Now, Now, in anticipation of that hearing to determine whether Busfield would be released pending trial, his team submitted an over 200-page filing to get out of jail.

And a big part of that filing is seemingly trying to tarnish the credibility of these two boys' parents. And this is new from the last time we covered this. So in Busfield's filing, arguing again that he should be released, he claims essentially that these parents are fraudsters and stage parents. You're talking about parents who have been identified as Angel LaSalle and Ronald Rodas. And they even cite how, according to them, LaSalle allegedly was heard saying to somebody that she wanted to get, quote, revenge on Busfield, potentially because the boys were replaced by another child actor in the show, that that's what the motivation here is. Quote, the state offers no reliable proof, only allegations advanced by witnesses with documented

histories of fraud and financial exploitation, contradicted by a comprehensive studio investment. investigation and refuted by witnesses and objective risk assessments. I'm going to get into all that, but the prosecution's case, they claim, the defense claims, quote, rests almost entirely on the accounts of two stage parents. They're not neutral observers. Their allegations emerged only after the loss of the twins' role and only after consultation with civil counsel, creating an obvious financial and retaliatory motive. That motive must be evaluated against the couple's well-documented history of fraud and dishonesty. So what is Busfield referring to with respect to these parents? Well, Busfield claims, if you take to the father here, Rodas, essentially the claim is,

the allegation is that he changes his story when money's on the table and that he's doing this for financial gain, saying Rodas, quote, is a former attorney who is convicted of federal conspiracy and wire fraud and was later disbarred following that prosecution for a multi-million dollar scheme in which he used his law license to deceive vulnerable victims for profit. And they cite how Rodas previously pleaded guilty to conspiracy to commit wire fraud, where he reportedly, quote, defrauded more than 1,500 homeowners of approximately $6 million. And that, again, is according to the filing that was obtained by outlets like People magazine. But Busfield also cites in this filing how apparently a member of the cleaning lady production

crew who apparently knew Rodas called him, quote, pushy and manipulative. and that he would, quote, frequently encourage and tell the children to hug people on set, including Mr. Busfield. So you're kind of seeing where a defense may be going here and what we might see at a trial. Well, what about the boy's mother, right? Busfield is not only going against the father, he's also going after the mother. So Busfield claims that she, quote, has had multiple civil judgments entered against her for fraudulent and dishonest behavior, claiming that she was sued for, quote, various claims including fraud, conversion, fraudulent transfer, and making the allegation that she illegally repossessed a car, that she wrote bad checks to casinos.

Quote, the fact of the matter is that the parents driving the allegations against Mr. Busfield have an extraordinarily checkered pass that casts enormous doubt on the truthfulness of their statements. The timeline does not indicate an investigation naturally unfolding, but instead an express effort to seek revenge against Mr. Fusfield after losing the lucrative opportunity that came with their children's acting on the cleaning lady. Now I'm going to get into in a little bit if any of this is going to come into a trial, but it is important to talk about in the context of this whole story. And by the way, in terms of, you know, him trying to fight for his release. I do have to cite something else,

though. I think this is important. So apparently Warner Brothers, who was a partner in the production of this TV show, also had an independent outside investigation conducted. And apparently, that investigation found, quote, no corroborating evidence of inappropriate conduct. And in Busfield's opposition filing, he even claims that the investigation, quote, found not only that allegations against Mr. Busfield were unfounded, but also that LaSalle, the mother, after hearing that her children might not be returning for a fourth season, stated to the show's lead actor that she would, quote, get her revenge against Tim Busfield. Now there's more.

In the filing, his legal team argued that Busfield. field recently passed a polygraph test. And this is when he was asked questions about these allegations. They also claim that the findings of a psychosexual evaluation concluded that Busfield, quote, does not appear to have a sexual attraction to prepubescent or adolescent males or females. Is this relevant to the case? We'll talk about that too. And then I got to mention this as well. You have Busfield's wife, actress Melissa Gilbert, Little House on the Prairie. So she writes a letter to the court in anticipation of this detention hearing. And you don't see this every day, okay?

Sometimes family members, they choose to remain silent. They say, I'm not going to say anything. I just want to respect our family's privacy at this time. Apparently submits a letter to the court saying, quote, Tim has the strongest moral compass of any human I have ever known. He has dedicated his spiritual self to always being of service to others. He starts every day with kindness and compassion. And every single set where Tim is.

is working. Multiple people come up to me to tell me he is their favorite director ever. Your Honor, this is the strangest letter I've ever had to write. I'm trying to tow a line between logic and all the feelings swirling through me. I began this letter with logic, but now the feelings have taken over. I can't help it. I only want this extraordinary man safe and whole. And then you have the prosecution. So first, you can even cite the detective who looked into this case and in the paperwork in support of the arrest said, in my training and experience, pedophiles often infiltrate families under a trusted role like Timothy, who as a producer exploited the hectic film sets to essentially sexually abuse and masked it as play.

And prosecutors, they also cite to what they call Bussfield's, quote, documented pattern of sexual misconduct, abuse of authority, and grooming behavior. And they cite previous allegations against him, like how back in the 1990s, a 17-year-old accused him of sexual assault on the set of Little Big League, or how about a number 2012 when a 28-year-old woman accused him of groping her in a movie theater. Now, to be clear, there were no criminal charges that were ever filed in connection with either alleged episode. And by the way, that also includes this other allegation because it just came out that the father of a 16-year-old girl came forward saying that Busfield sexually assaulted his daughter several

years ago. And then at the time, Busfield had begged them not to go to the police if he promised to go to therapy. Again, no criminal charges were filed in connection with that. Now, I will tell you, Busfield's attorney's also fought back against that. For example, with the 17-year-old, they claim they they have a witness who will say or has said that the girl's father had this TV pilot that he wanted pitched and allegedly said, they're going to love it because Tim Busfield is going to present it to them, which I'm certain he will do because he will need to if he thinks he's going to bleep my daughter. So obviously credibility is at the center stage of this case. The fallout, though, despite all of that, has already been intense because he's fighting two battles here. The battle in the court of law and the

court of public opinion, right? So NBC chose not to air an upcoming episode of Law and Order SVU featuring Busfield. TMZ just announced that he's being edited out of an upcoming Amazon MGM film, you deserve each other. His agency, innovative artists, apparently he's been with them for years, dropped him as a client. So the fallout has been intense. With all that in mind, let's discuss. All right, let me bring in criminal defense attorney from New Mexico, John Day. John, thank you so much for coming on to talk about this. I mean, this is right in your jurisdiction. I'm so happy to have you on. I have to tell you, the allegations are incredibly disturbing. I mean, there are cases that are built purely on the testimony of the accusers and sometimes child

abuse accusers. I have to tell you, though, there are aspects of this that I think give you pause. And the audio comes out. Let's start there. The audio comes out. There's one thing to read that in November of 2024, they described what initially had happened, this kind of tickling, this Uncle Tim denied that there was any kind of sexual contact. But then you hear the audio. What do you think the value of that audio is? What did you take away from it? Right.

Well, thanks for having me. There's so much to unpack here. Initially, this audio, and it's a police interview of the two young boys, and the officers, very direct, asks the boys, did Timothy Bussfield touch you in any inappropriate way? The answers seem very direct. The boys say, no, he never, he never. touched us. So apparently after that, within a year after that, according to the district attorney,

the boys had gone through some kind of therapy, some kind of counseling, and there were, according to the prosecutor's disclosures that were the opposite of that. But when you listen to this initial audio, there doesn't seem to be any hesitation. The boys are really clear when they deny that there was any inappropriate touching. And of course, the defense, Bustfield's defense, is using this to push back real vigorously, of course, and to the idea that somehow Buston Bustfield committed these crimes. And not only does it apply to the charges, but this is what Bustfield's team is using to try to convince, of course, a judge to let him out of custody pending trial, which could be a year down the road.

So a strategic release of discovery by Bustfield's lawyers, they think it's going to really help them. They're incredibly aggressive even in this initial stage of the case because he's fighting two battles here, right? He's fighting a battle in the court of law and the court of public opinion. I mean, I think a big part of this we've seen with celebrities before. is they don't necessarily just remain quiet. He, before he even turns himself in, films a video denying the accusations.

His lawyer puts out a statement denying the accusations. They file this over 200-page opposition filing, really trying to tarnish the credibility of the parents. And I'll get into that a minute. There is two things here, right? When you listen to the audio and you hear the fact that the boys initially, in November of 2024 didn't tell authorities, one way could be, yeah, this is not true.

The parents push them to come. forward with it, or they really didn't admit what actually happened to them. And sometimes it takes therapy. And sometimes it takes someone to make them feel safe that they can come forward and say what actually happened to them. I imagine that might be difficult for a jury to consider. But in your perspective, do you think that there is still a strong possibility that these boys were abused? And it makes sense that they didn't initially come forward with the abuse allegations. So I've prosecuted a lot of these cases when I was a prosecutor. And that's true. That's a thing. The idea that there can be disclosures that don't occur until after there's an appropriate level of counseling and appropriate level of treatment by a medical professional. So, you know, you've got to remain skeptical throughout this entire case. I think of both sides of the prosecution's case and the defense case because there's so much here. You know, it's a he said, she said case where the defense has to try to systematically undermine the credibility of all the he said people. They're going after, not only the fact that there's this tape, this audio of the boys denying any touching,

but in their pleadings, the defense has also gone after the parents, alleging with a factual basis that the father was a former lawyer in California, who got lost his law license, he had been convicted of fraud. They alleged that the mother's engaged in frauds their activities. They're really trying to systematically undercut the credibility of the parents who brought this. And they have a lot of detail that backs up the defense. So I'm skeptical, as I always am, going into a case. But in this case, you know the defense has a lot of ammunition to support what they're alleging.

Can we talk about that? All the allegations against the parents. Is that relevant? Would that be used as a defense at trial? Or would that only come in if the parents decided to testify? And you could maybe bring that in to cross-examine and question their credibility? Right. Well, the defense is going to do everything it can to get every single element of their claims

in front of a jury if it gets to that point. Because what they're alleging is that the parents have put together this scam against Busfield. And they have statements from people who are associated with the production. They have the fact that the parents, at least the father, has this conviction in federal court in California for fraud. And so they want to be able to use that in every way they can. Now, whether it comes in unless the parents don't testify, that's another story.

That's going to come up in pretrial motions as this thing moves along. But what they're doing right now is they're in the court of public opinion and they're fighting back. Remember, prosecutors are constrained to what they can say publicly about a case. They have limits on what they can go in front of a camera and say about their case other than we believe we have a strong case. We believe we have evidence. They kind of have to limit it to that because prosecutors are really, it's very different for defense lawyers. Prosecutors can't really try their case the way that the defense lawyers can in the court of public opinion. And that's why we're seeing Busfield's team full steam ahead on this stuff, bringing up all the parents' history,

releasing this audio that they've obtained in discovery from the DA's office. So this is a real concerted and aggressive strategy by the defense to try to convince people early on that there's nothing here. Had they get this so quickly, they prepared an over 200-page opposition filing so quickly, all these details about the parents, the audio recordings. Do you think there's a possibility Busfield knew these charges were coming? or was it all, hey, we knew there was an arrest warrant, and he was trying to get counsel. And before he turned himself in, they were all already drafting this and planning it. Right. What we know is there was an interview by a bus field by law enforcement back in the fall back in October. So he knew, and what's interesting about that is he fully cooperated.

He didn't have his lawyer with them, which is another issue, I think. But he gave this long, detailed interview to the police back in October. So he had some sense that there was something coming down the pike here. and he's got a very aggressive team in L.A. and in New Mexico. New Mexico lawyers are really first-rate defense lawyers. So what he's done is he's had some notice that something's happening. And this audio, for example, of the boys denying any touching would have been turned over by the DA's office prior to his detention hearing today. So the defense team had this information, the strategic release of that.

You can understand it from a defense perspective. They have something basically, in their view, exonerates bus field. So why not get it out in public? It's audio. It's the, it's almost as good as a video of the same thing. What about the idea, let's go through this piece by piece, the results of that psychosexual evaluation, that he's low risk, that he doesn't appear to have a sexual attraction to prepubescent or adolescent males or females.

Let's start there. What are your thoughts on that psychosexual evaluation, if those results are true, by the way? Right. I mean, that's open to interpretation. Of course, the other side that the prosecution is going to say, well, you know, you pay an expert enough, you'll get whatever, you know, they'll tell you what you want to hear. but apparently the credibility and the credentials of the person who were conducting it seemed to be very legitimate. So that's one tool that the defense has.

You know, the other thing that they did, and this is interesting. New Mexico is one of the very few states that allows admissibility of polygraph exams. I use polygraph exams a lot in New Mexico. There's a procedure to get it in front of the judge in front of the jury. Of course, the prosecution is going to fight back. But in my experience, the jury, if they're educated on the science of polygraphs, if they're educated on what this is all about, it's certainly an interesting issue. Remember, look, the U.S. government believes in polygraphs. The FBI and the CIA use them extensively. So whatever you think about them, there's a really good chance

that his results are going to come in. Are they reliable? I think they're reliable, but I'm biased because I use them in a lot of cases. And the people I use as polygrapers, including the guy who did Busfield's exam, they know that their reputations and their business is on the line. So they are very, very tough on the subjects who do. the polygraphs and they don't give scores, in my experience anyway, they don't give good scores to people who don't deserve good scores on these exams. So, you know, it depends on your perspective. Personally, I think there's a lot of value to a polygraph. And in my case, I use them, I ask people, would you take a polygraph? There's some people who say, absolutely, I want to clear my name.

Let's do it today. There are other people who say, you know, I'm not really good on tests, so I'm not so sure about that. That in itself is a good defining moment. But in my experience, they're using and the guy who did this exam in Albuquerque for Busfield has a really good reputation. This, uh, talking about reliability, this independent investigation that was authored or conducted through Warner Brothers, I, you know, I believe they hired an outside law firm, um, apparently found no corroborating evidence that he had touched, inappropriately touched these boys. And according to Busfield, their interpretation also was that the investigation found questioning the parents' motives here, right?

Is that, you would say, okay, how reliable is that because it's being conducted, this independent investigation, it's not the same as law enforcement. Then again, it's supposed to be an objective independent investigation by a law firm. What are your takeaways on that? You know, so Busfield's defense folks are going to argue, look, Warner Brothers, there's a lot on the line for Warner Brothers. They want the best possible investigation that they can. They want to know what's going on because.

they have a lot of exposure. So they hire an outside law firm that obviously has experience in this kind of stuff. The result they get favors Busfield. Prosecution, of course, is going to argue, well, the motive behind the investigation was to cover the behinds of Warner Brothers, and so you have to discount anything that doesn't support the prosecution in this case. But it's a fascinating pre-arrest, pre-charge investigation by civil lawyers into this, and it's going to be used by the Busfield people to bolster their defense. the prosecution, the DA's office is looking for anything they can to discredit that and say, well, they weren't law enforcement officers, they didn't have the full story, whatever they're going to say. But it's another tool for Busfield and his incredibly aggressive defense team to

use to try to discount the allegations. I thought it was really interesting also that Melissa Gilbert came forward because many times in these kinds of cases, the family members, the spouses, they'll say, no comment at this time. We want to remain private. She submitted a letter to the court talking about his moral compass, fully supporting him. What were your thoughts on that? Well, look, this is the little girl star of Little House on the Prairie from years back. You know, there's a lot of credibility, at least in the eyes of Busfield's defense team, of this woman who is standing by Busfield and saying, I know this guy, this is not him. It's a smart move by the defense. She has credibility. She has a presence. She's known within the

country or with the entertainment industry. And her letter was unequivocal. It's like, this guy didn't do it. I know him. You got to believe him. It's okay for the family. for the spouse to do that. Now, whether it has any effect on anybody remains to be seen. But you have to look at what Busfield's team has done in a relatively short period of time to try to push back against the DA's allegations. And having people from the entertainment industry who have worked with him certainly cuts against the claims that the DA has put out about these alleged prior incidents

that Busfield was engaged in. So, I mean, this really is a battle of both sides are ready for the fight. and it's been really interesting to see how they're preparing for this and how aggressive they're being. And you mentioned the prosecution allegations. We both know that when it comes to a detention analysis, the prosecution can put in a lot more evidence than maybe they can put in during a trial. You're seeing all these past allegations of bus field, right? The 17-year-old, the 28-year-old, now the 16-year-old. How relevant is that going to be in the actual criminal case?

Because, again, they're putting it in to suggest this is a person. pattern, this guy should not be let out. This is, even though, you know, no criminal charges had been asserted for many of those prior instances, they are significant for that consideration, for the detention analysis, but how significant are they going to be in an upcoming trial? It's unlikely that in a trial, these allegations, because they are not, they don't involve the same facts in terms of touching underage boys. There's nothing apparently in the previous allegation.

that involved touching underage boys. They involved females, apparently. And I think there's some question about some of the facts surrounding these allegations. One of them was 30 years old. But remember, there was another recent trial where prior allegations came in in the Harvey Weinstein trial. The judge let those in. Appeals court overturned it on the grounds that those things shouldn't have come in. So this is always an open question.

It would be interesting to see where that goes with this. But again, this is part of the DA strategy to throw everything they can about Busfield against the public walls. to see what sticks. You understand why the prosecutors have included this, but it also raises questions, again, about the facts surrounding those other allegations, and Busfield's team is certainly going full steam ahead, challenge in those. So you got a DA's office that's constrained about what they can do publicly. Defense lawyers, not so much. That's why we're seeing such an aggressive public pushback by Busfield's team. They don't have the same restrictions that a prosecutor does about going public with this stuff. And I just want to go full circle. This case is

very much built on the testimony. the accounts of these two young boys. Having said that, it's not just them, right? You have the therapist notes, you have a detective who looked at everything and conducted interviews and believes that Busfield did this. I mean, how much is this if somebody hears this story and says, oh, wait, this is all based on the accounts of these two young boys. But I think there's more here. I think there's more here. I think that it's complicated when you think about their ages, but also I think this is a very complicated case in and of itself. But wouldn't you agree that the credibility of these two boys could potentially be supported by everything else that we're seeing?

I do. And as I said, when I was a prosecutor, prosecuted cases where the initial disclosures were not the result of, you know, treatment and the ability to have people, professional people talk to you about something that happened. I've certainly seen it where there's an initial declination. Nothing happened to me. I don't want to talk about it. There's no crime here. But as those boys, for example, maybe got into therapy, got into with professional medical help, things came out that didn't come out initially. I have seen that happen. But you know, at the end of the day, one of the things you've got to remember is allegations by the prosecution that these boys were touched inappropriately, sexually, and harmed that way. Allegations by the defense that these boys are being manipulated by their parents or whoever. Either way, the victims are the boys. They're either being manipulated or they were touched. It's one of those two things. things. And that's what's really tragic about this at the very end of the, and the final analysis, the two boys are the victims one way or the other. And that's really heartbreak tragic. That's a really, really good point. I'm glad you mentioned that. John Day, let's see where this goes. Thank you so much. Good to see you. And that's all we have for you right now here on Sidebar, everybody. Thank you so much for joining us. And as always, please subscribe on YouTube,

Apple Podcast, Spotify. You can watch us, by the way, on NBC's Peacock. We have episodes always coming out there. If you want to follow me, X, Instagram, you can watch my show on News Nation, Jesse Weber Live. Until next time, I'm Jesse Weber. I'll speak to you then.