Knife Fantasy Texts Rattle Karmelo Anthony’s Case

At a Texas retrial hearing, a prosecutor read a teen’s text about stabbing someone and “lick[ing] their blood off the blade,” raising new questions about what the jury never saw.

Story Highlights

Prosecutor read graphic text messages he says came from Karmelo Anthony’s phone, pointing to violent intent.
State says the jury never heard these messages because of an off-the-record agreement in the first trial.
Defense continues to argue Anthony acted in self-defense during a sudden fight at a school track meet.
New judge oversees a hearing that could shape any retrial and the evidence allowed in court.

What Prosecutors Revealed in Court

On August 20, 2026, in a Collin County courtroom, Assistant District Attorney Bill Wirskye read texts he said came from Karmelo Anthony’s phone. One message stated, “When I stab somebody I’m gonna lick their blood off the blade.” Another read, “I’m low key on the verge.” Prosecutors said the texts showed a focus on fights, guns, and knives, and argued they help prove intent tied to the fatal stabbing at a high school track meet in 2025.

Wirskye also linked the messages to a report from Anthony’s ex-girlfriend. He said she told authorities on the morning of the stabbing that Anthony stalked her and threatened her with a knife. The state presented this as context for the texts and Anthony’s frame of mind. Reporters at the hearing relayed those claims; the underlying exhibits were not publicly shown in full, leaving timing and recipients unclear in open reporting.

The Evidence Fight That Could Decide a Retrial

Prosecutors and defense lawyers agree on one point: the jury in the first trial did not see the phone messages. Reports attribute that to a “gentleman’s agreement,” described as an off-the-record deal that narrowed what came into evidence. That private limit now fuels a transparency fight. If the new judge allows the texts in a retrial, jurors would weigh material that the first panel never examined, which could change how they see Anthony’s intent.

The court also saw the knife allegedly used in the stabbing during the original trial, linking the content of the texts to a physical object in evidence. That display underscored why the messages matter to the state’s theory. But the defense stresses that the key legal question is not character or past words. It is who started the fight and whether Anthony reasonably feared harm in that moment.

The Ongoing Self-Defense Claim

Anthony admitted the stabbing but has long said he acted in self-defense. Defense accounts say a confrontation began after he sat under a rival school’s tent. A teammate reportedly testified that Austin Metcalf pushed Anthony first. Body camera video captured Anthony saying, “He put his hands on me.” Those points support a claim that the fight escalated fast, and that any knife use was a split-second response, not a planned attack.

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 new judge is in place after a recusal fight over the prior judge’s post-verdict comments. That change adds to public concern about process. Many citizens on both the right and the left see a justice system that runs on backroom deals and media spin rather than open proof. This case now turns on basic fairness questions: which messages are authentic, how close in time they are to the fight, and whether jurors should hear them at all.

Why This Matters Beyond One Case

Digital messages are now central in many trials. Courts must decide if texts show real threats or just teenage bravado. Legal guides say timing, authorship, and purpose decide relevance and fairness. Without those anchors, messages can mislead. If the judge admits the texts, the jury will weigh them with the knife, the push account, and the body camera words. If not, the focus returns to the immediate actions on the track that morning.

What to Watch Next

Watch for rulings on whether the texts come in at any retrial, and for clear timelines of when they were sent. Look for independent records about the reported stalking call. Expect both sides to press the limits of digital evidence rules. The public should demand open, on-the-record decisions, not handshake deals. Fair trials require sunlight, solid proof, and equal rules—standards too often missing when institutions serve themselves first.