Defense Attorney Josh Kolsrud Insights on the Anna Kepner Cruise Ship Death

In a recent Court TV appearance, Defense Attorney Josh Kolsrud shared legal insights on the investigation into the death of 18-year-old Anna Kepner aboard a cruise ship. Below is a summary of the case background and highlights of Kolsrud’s perspective. 

Case Background

• Anna Kepner died earlier this month while on a Carnival cruise.
• Court filings from a Florida family-court custody dispute allege that Kepner’s 16-year-old stepbrother (identified as “T.H.”) is a suspect.
• The FBI has not named any suspect and typically does not provide operational updates during active investigations.

Foreseeability of Harm 

Kolsrud emphasized that the death—described publicly as a possible strangulation—was not something a reasonable person would foresee from the living or rooming arrangements on the cruise. He distinguished moral or parenting debates from the legal analysis of foreseeability, stressing that questions about whether certain teenagers should have been rooming together are separate from whether a homicide was predictable.

Allegations in Civil Court Are Not Criminal Charges

 Kolsrud clarified that, to date, no law enforcement agency, including the FBI, has named a suspect. References to a “suspect” originate from filings and remarks in a family court setting—part of a civil custody dispute—not from a criminal proceeding. He cautioned against equating civil-court allegations or observations with criminal charges or designations.

Opportunity Does Not Equal Suspicion

Addressing suggestions that certain individuals may have had access or opportunity, Kolsrud noted that mere opportunity to be present does not make someone a suspect. In criminal law, opportunity alone is insufficient without corroborating evidence of intent, action, or involvement.

Evidence-First Approach 

Kolsrud underscored that, at this stage, there is no evidence in the public record showing that the stepbrother intended to harm or kill Kepner. He urged patience and an evidence-driven approach, encouraging observers to wait for investigative findings rather than drawing conclusions from civil filings or speculation.

Key Takeaway Points

• The death, as publicly discussed, was not reasonably foreseeable from the rooming circumstances.
• No law enforcement agency has named a suspect; “suspect” references stem from a civil family-court context.
• Civil-court statements in a custody dispute are not criminal findings or charges.
• Opportunity or access alone does not establish suspicion in a criminal investigation.
• There is no public evidence indicating the stepbrother intended to harm or kill; conclusions should await official investigative results.