Defense Gamesmanship: Josh Kolsrud Breaks Down the Banfield Trial Strategy

This Is Chess, Not Chaos

Criminal defense attorney Josh Kolsrud says he’s “floored” — but not by the evidence. In his view, the defense team’s recent moves are pure gamesmanship. Josh suggests the strategy is designed to distract prosecutors heading into a critical preparation weekend, forcing them to worry about cross-examination instead of tightening their closing arguments. He notes that Brendan Banfield himself appeared surprised by his attorneys’ statements, reinforcing Josh’s belief that this is a tactical play rather than a sign Banfield will testify. In fact, Josh predicts flatly: Banfield likely won’t take the stand.

" ..their strategy is designed to distract prosecutors "

Why Testifying Could Blow Up the Defense’s Own Strategy

Josh strongly cautions against overanalyzing Banfield’s body language, voice, or eye movements, calling out the lack of real science behind such “tells.” But more importantly, he explains why testimony would actively hurt the defense. If Banfield testifies, the jury’s focus shifts away from the inconsistencies and controversies the defense wants front and center — including claims that the au pair, Juliana, was offered money to change her story and disputes among forensic experts. Once Banfield is on the stand, jurors stop weighing contradictions and start judging him — his demeanor, tone, and credibility — which Josh believes is a losing proposition.

The FetLife Evidence: The Prosecution’s Weakest Link

Josh zeroes in on what he sees as the prosecution’s biggest misstep: the FetLife “catfishing” theory. He argues the state treated it like a smoking gun when, in reality, it’s riddled with doubt. Josh points to testimony from the original detective, who initially found no indication that anyone else had access to the victim’s devices, as well as a second expert who rejected the idea of a catfish scenario altogether. According to Josh, this is a trap the prosecution set for itself — and one the defense has exploited so effectively that Banfield may not need to testify at all.

Key Takeaways from Josh Kolsrud

• The defense strategy is deliberate gamesmanship, not desperation
• Brendan Banfield testifying would likely damage the defense’s case
• Jury focus matters — contradictions beat credibility battles
• The FetLife theory is, in Josh’s view, the prosecution’s weakest evidence
• Enough doubt has been raised that silence may be the smartest move

Bottom line: Josh believes the defense is winning by not putting Banfield on the stand — and letting the prosecution’s own evidence unravel under scrutiny.