TIM BUSFIELD’S LIE DETECTOR ‘STUNT’ BACKFIRES: EXPERTS SLAM ‘MANIPULATED’ RESULTS IN CHILD SEX ABUSE CASE

By Paul Martinez 01/16/2026

THE “MAGIC” POLYGRAPH: PROOF OR PR TRICK?

Timothy Busfield is fighting for his life, and his defense team just pulled a rabbit out of a hat—or at least, they tried to. The Hollywood director, currently sitting in a New Mexico jail cell on horrific child sex abuse charges, is loudly claiming he “passed” a voluntary polygraph test that proves his innocence. But before you buy what he is selling, experts are screaming that this so-called evidence might be nothing more than a calculated “stunt” to manipulate the public.

Busfield’s high-powered attorney, Larry Stein, released a statement touting the test results as a smoking gun. However, leading polygraph experts are poking massive holes in that narrative. Lisa Mooney, a licensed examiner and board member of the California Association of Polygraph Examiners, told Us Weekly that without knowing the specific questions asked, the test is virtually meaningless. Busfield could have been asked if the sky is blue and “passed” with flying colors.

“My biggest thing is, we don’t know what the questions were asked,” Mooney exposed. She warned that an unethical examiner could easily softball the questions to generate a “truthful” result that has zero relevance to the actual crimes he is accused of committing against two young twin actors on the set of The Cleaning Lady.

TAINTING THE JURY POOL: A CALCULATED MOVE?

Why release the results if they might not even be admissible in court? According to expert Richard Salinas, it is a dirty legal trick designed to poison the minds of potential jurors before they even step into the courtroom. By flooding the media with headlines about a “passed” lie detector test, Busfield’s team is hoping to plant a seed of doubt that the judge can’t uproot.

“If there’s a jury down the line, and they heard, ‘Hey, this guy passed a polygraph test, but the court doesn’t allow the evidence,’ they’re going to be tainted,” Salinas explained. “And this is why I think they did that. It carries a long way.”

“It’s classic defense strategy . Release a ‘passed’ polygraph to the press, let the public think he’s innocent, and hope one juror remembers it during deliberations. It’s manipulation, plain and simple.”

Legal analyst Dave Ring agrees, calling out the move for exactly what it is: a battle for the court of public opinion. “Lie detector results are generally not admissible in criminal cases because they can be unreliable and they can be manipulated,” Ring stated. Busfield isn’t trying to convince a judge right now; he is trying to convince you.

NEW MEXICO’S LEGAL LOOPHOLE

Here is where it gets tricky. While most states ban polygraph results from criminal trials, New Mexico is a legal outlier. It is the only state where polygraph evidence can be admitted without the other side’s permission, provided it meets certain standards. This means Busfield’s “stunt” could actually end up in front of a jury.

Mooney is ” percent” convinced that Stein plans to use these results in trial. If he does, it will turn the courtroom into a battle of experts, with prosecutors likely tearing apart the methodology of the “independent” examiner Busfield hired. Did he shop around until he found someone who would give him the result he wanted? We don’t know, and that is the problem.

“Unless someone is trained typically in federal government status on how to beat the polygraph, it isn’t possible to do,” Mooney noted regarding the accuracy of the machines. But she added a crucial caveat: “The examiner could have asked Busfield any random question to get a positive result.”

THE “TICKLING” ADMISSION VS. THE POLYGRAPH

The irony of this “truthful” test is staggering when you consider what Busfield allegedly told police during his interrogation. As we previously reported, Busfield admitted to investigators that he didn’t “really remember” if he touched the children, but conceded that “tickling” wouldn’t be uncommon for him on set.

So, what question did he pass on the polygraph? “Did you sexually abuse them?” Or was it something more specific and legally parsed like, “Did you intend to harm them?” If he admits to the physical contact but denies the sexual intent, a polygraph might register that as “truthful” based on his own twisted perception of reality.

Sam Dordulian, a former sex crimes prosecutor, warned that even a failed test could be used as leverage for a plea deal, but a passed test is a dangerous weapon in the hands of a celebrity defense team. “Defendants are always afraid of how the court of public opinion would feel,” he noted.

NEW ALLEGATIONS SURFACE

While Busfield plays games with lie detectors, his legal problems are multiplying. Since his arrest, new allegations have surfaced involving a female victim who claims she was abused by the director “several years ago” when she was . Busfield has denied these accusations as well, but the pattern is becoming harder to ignore.

Currently locked up at the Bernalillo County Metropolitan Detention Center, Busfield is facing a potential -year sentence. His wife, Melissa Gilbert, stands by him, but the mounting evidence and the questionable PR tactics are painting a picture of a desperate man trying to buy his way out of a corner.

CLIFFHANGER: WILL THE JUDGE ALLOW IT?

The next major battle in this war will be the admissibility hearing. Will the judge allow this “passed” polygraph to be shown to a jury? If so, prosecutors will have to dismantle the test question by question. If not, the jury will be told to ignore the headline they have all already seen.

Busfield’s freedom might hinge on whether twelve people believe a machine hired by his own lawyer, or the testimony of the children he allegedly victimized. The polygraph might have been a clever PR move today, but it could be the rope he hangs himself with tomorrow.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *