Josh Kolsrud on the Brianna Aguilera Investigation: “Follow the Facts”

In a recent Court TV apperance, defense attorney Josh Kolsrud shared his perspective on why Austin police reached a suicide conclusion in the death of Texas A&M student Brianna Aguilera—and why, in his view, that conclusion isn’t inherently unreasonable based on what investigators have described so far.

The Family’s Attorney: Advocacy vs. Evidence

Kolsrud noted that the family’s attorney is “earning his paycheck,” framing the public pushback as a form of zealous advocacy. In his view, attorneys representing grieving families often scrutinize law enforcement decisions aggressively—and that’s not unexpected.

At the same time, Kolsrud emphasized that advocacy should be tested against verifiable facts, not suspicion alone.

Prior Statements Matter: Not a “One-Off” Comment

A central point in Kolsrud’s analysis is that investigators reported Aguilera had previously told friends—on multiple occasions in October—that she was having suicidal thoughts. Kolsrud’s view is that repeated prior statements, as described by police, are significant because they suggest this wasn’t an isolated remark made in a single moment.

The Phone Note and What Police Say It Shows

Kolsrud highlighted the reported existence of a note on Aguilera’s phone that “supposedly expressed the reasons why she wanted to commit suicide.” From his standpoint, if such a note is authentic and connected to the decedent, it is the type of evidence police will weigh heavily when determining manner of death.

Lack of Defensive Wounds or Struggle: What Investigators Look For

Kolsrud pointed out that police reported no defensive wounds and no signs of a struggle. He framed this as important because, when law enforcement evaluates the possibility of foul play, they typically look for:

• indications of a physical confrontation,
• injuries consistent with restraint or assault,
• and other physical evidence suggesting another person’s involvement.

In Kolsrud’s view, the absence of those indicators makes it harder to build a criminal theory.

Motive and Opportunity: Why Police May Not See a Criminal Case

Kolsrud explained that, from a law enforcement perspective, investigators look for motive and opportunity when they consider whether a death might be a homicide. His opinion was that, based on what police have described publicly, they “just [aren’t] seeing it.”

Intoxication and Mental State: Context Police Consider

Kolsrud also emphasized the reported context that Aguilera had been heavily drinking and appeared emotionally disturbed and thinking about self-harm. In his view, those factors—paired with the prior suicidal comments and the phone note—help explain why police would view suicide as the most supportable conclusion at that stage.

“Not an Unreasonable Conclusion”—With One Important Caveat

Kolsrud’s bottom line was that, given the information police have cited, it’s “not unreasonable” for the Austin Police Department to reach a suicide finding.

However, he also stressed an important safeguard: if the autopsy results reveal something inconsistent with suicide, there would be “no reason” investigators couldn’t reopen the case. In other words, Kolsrud sees the conclusion as provisional—subject to revision if new forensic findings change the evidentiary picture.

Key Takeaways from Josh Kolsrud’s Commentary

• Repeated prior suicidal statements (as reported) weigh strongly in a suicide determination.
• A note on the phone, if genuine and attributable, is significant evidence.
• The reported lack of defensive wounds or struggle makes foul play harder to prove.
• Police assess motive and opportunity; Kolsrud believes they aren’t apparent from the public facts described.
• The conclusion can change—autopsy findings could justify reopening the investigation.

If you or someone you know is struggling with suicidal thoughts, you can call or text 988 in the U.S. for the Suicide & Crisis Lifeline.