Blood-Licking Text Bombshell Hits Karmelo Anthony Retrial

At a retrial hearing, a prosecutor read a text where Karmelo Anthony wrote he would “lick their blood off the blade,” raising fresh questions about evidence the jury never saw.

Story Highlights

  • Prosecutor said Anthony texted about stabbing and “lick[ing] blood off the blade.”
  • State also cited a “low key on the verge” text and claims of a knife threat that morning.
  • News reports say a “gentleman’s agreement” kept phone evidence from jurors.
  • Defense continues to argue self-defense and fights trial fairness issues.

What Prosecutors Put On The Record At The Hearing

On August 20, in a Collin County courtroom, Assistant District Attorney Bill Wirskye told the judge that Karmelo Anthony sent texts showing violent intent. He quoted a message, “When I stab somebody I’m gonna lick their blood off the blade.” He also pointed to a message saying, “I’m low key on the verge.” Prosecutors said the texts show an interest in knives and fights, and tie to the state’s case against Anthony. These claims were reported from the hearing.

Prosecutors further argued that Anthony’s ex-girlfriend had reported stalking and a knife threat on the same morning as the fatal stabbing. They said this context matched the tone of his texts. The reports did not show the full message threads or timestamps, so the exact timing and audience remain unclear. Still, the state says the messages matter because they show mindset near the event in question. These points came from hearing coverage.

How This Evidence Was Kept From The Jury

Local reporting says jurors did not see the phone evidence during the trial. That absence is tied to what has been called a “handshake” or “gentleman’s agreement” between lawyers. The reported deal narrowed what came into court, focusing tightly on the morning of the stabbing. This behind-doors choice now fuels debate over fairness and transparency. It also explains why the state highlights the texts at the retrial stage.

Earlier trial coverage showed jurors a knife the state said Anthony used in the stabbing. That physical item connected the charged act to a blade. The state now says the texts help link attitude to action. But without the full phone records in open court, the public still sees these messages through summaries. That gap in records invites doubt about context, even as the quotes themselves are stark.

What The Defense Says And Why It Matters

Anthony and his lawyers say he acted in self-defense. They argue he faced a sudden push and threat from a group, and he reacted. A school officer’s body camera recorded Anthony saying, “He put his hands on me.” The defense also attacked the trial’s fairness. They won the removal of the original judge from parts of the post-trial process after objecting to his public comments. These points set the fight over a new trial.

This clash is bigger than one case. Many readers on the right and left worry that key evidence gets hidden by deals, and that process choices, not truth, decide outcomes. Here, the state cites violent texts that jurors never saw. The defense cites a shove and claims the system narrowed the view. Courts must now judge what the jury should hear next time. Until then, strong claims on both sides deserve careful testing in open court.

Why This Hearing Should Concern Voters

Courts often wrestle with digital messages. Judges need to know who wrote them, when they were sent, and why they matter to the event. Without that, shocking words can mislead or inflame. With that, they can show intent. The hearing reports quote extreme language and point to a morning timeline, but they do not provide the full record. The next rulings should force clarity, so jurors, not backroom deals, make the hard call.

Sources:

twitchy.com, x.com, youtube.com, facebook.com, nbcdfw.com, courthousenews.com, dallasnews.com

© theredwire.com 2026. All rights reserved.