In a retrial hearing, a prosecutor read a text where Karmelo Anthony allegedly wrote, “When I stab somebody I’m gonna lick their blood off the blade,” raising sharp questions about intent and what jurors never saw.
Story Highlights
- Prosecutor quoted violent texts he says came from Anthony’s phone, including a stabbing fantasy.
- State linked the texts to claims of a weapon fixation and a knife threat to an ex-girlfriend that morning.
- A reported “gentleman’s agreement” kept phone evidence from jurors in the original trial, now under fire.
- The defense maintains Anthony acted in self-defense and challenges the trial’s fairness.
What The Prosecutor Revealed In Court
On August 20, 2026, Collin County Assistant District Attorney Bill Wirskye told a Texas court that Karmelo Anthony sent texts showing violent intent before the fatal stabbing of Austin Metcalf at a high school track meet. Wirskye quoted a line that read, “When I stab somebody I’m gonna lick their blood off the blade,” and another saying, “I’m low key on the verge.” He argued these messages show mindset and interest in knives and fights, not random teen talk.
Wirskye also tied the texts to a larger pattern. He said Anthony was “obsessed with fights, guns, and knives,” and pointed to a claim that Anthony’s ex-girlfriend reported stalking and a knife threat the same morning as the stabbing. While the hearing detailed the state’s view, the full text threads and timestamps were not entered publicly in the reports, leaving timeline and context questions that only the full record can settle.
The Evidence Jurors Did And Did Not See
During the original trial, jurors saw the knife allegedly used in the stabbing, which the state says connects the texts to the act itself. Yet reporting says a “handshake” understanding between lawyers kept some cellphone contents out. That deal is now a flashpoint. The defense says it narrowed the evidence unfairly. The state now treats the texts as major pieces the jury missed. This dispute fuels calls for a new trial and deeper review of evidence rules.
Coverage has noted that such digital messages can be powerful but also tricky. Their true weight often depends on when they were sent, to whom, and why. Courts usually require strong proof that the defendant wrote the texts and that they are relevant to what happened, not just character. Without full exhibits and timestamps in public view, readers should separate what was argued from what has been admitted as proof in a new proceeding.
The Defense’s Self-Defense Case And Ongoing Fairness Fight
Anthony’s attorneys have long argued he acted in self-defense during a sudden confrontation at the meet. Reports describe witnesses who said Metcalf pushed Anthony. Body camera video captured Anthony saying, “He put his hands on me.” The defense says he faced a group and made a split-second choice. That claim does not answer the text issue, but it goes to who started the fight and whether deadly force was justified under the law.
During Karmelo Anthony’s appeal hearing for a new trial, shocking evidence emerged about his behavior in the hours leading up to the stabbing. His ex-girlfriend had gone to an assistant principal that morning, reporting that she had broken up with him and that he was stalking…
— Jeff B (@jeffb198712) August 20, 2026
The case’s process battles deepen public mistrust. The defense won the recusal of the original judge after he publicly said the jury “got it right,” a comment they argued undermined neutrality. The “gentleman’s agreement” over phone evidence adds more doubt about transparency. People across the political spectrum see a court system that is opaque, slow, and influenced by backroom deals. This hearing forces the court to confront both the facts and the process that delivered a 35-year sentence.
Why This Matters Beyond One Case
This fight shows how electronic messages can shape a murder case and the public’s faith in justice. Prosecutors say the texts reveal intent. The defense says context and first contact matter most. Both sides point to rules that can hide or reveal key facts. When evidence surfaces late, citizens feel the system serves insiders first. Clear rules, open records, and careful judging are the only way to fix that trust gap and deliver a verdict that the public can accept.
Sources:
twitchy.com, x.com, youtube.com, facebook.com, nbcdfw.com, courthousenews.com
