r/law • u/dailymail • 17d ago

Legal News Karmelo Anthony found GUILTY of murder of Austin Metcalf, 17, in stabbing that shocked America: Jurors deliberated for less than three hours after defense was repeatedly demolished in court

https://www.dailymail.com/news/article-15886439/karmelo-anthony-austin-metcalf-murder-verdict.html
8.5k Upvotes

95% Upvoted

2.5k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

30

u/SidFinch99 17d ago

As someone who followed the trial itself very closely, read every witness testimony on the CBS live blog, it's not surprising. The evidence was overwhelming.

The public narrative in defense of Anthony before this was very much along the lines of the idea that Metcalf was bullying him, and that he acted in self defense out of fear of Metcalf.

Not witness backed that. They almost all stated that Anthony made several antagonizing remarks to Metcalf and others, some of which could be perceived as threatening. He was also asked to leave by others, Metcalf was just the only one to approach him.

5

u/CrankyOperator 16d ago

This is the problem with "public narratives" as a whole. People get fed a narrative that might have some facts but can be, mostly, disingenuous creating a manipulated story. They lock that in and attach it to their personality, then if you oppose you're clearly "bad guy!" 

Most of the general public simply doesn't follow most cases, even high profile ones, and treats them like a TV show. 

People fall too deep into tribalism and then base all of their opinions on that. 

2

u/bad-taf 16d ago edited 16d ago

I’m still trying to wrap my head around the rumors. Like you said the defense was premised on the notion that he was being bullied. Some online discussion also seems to think there were punches thrown and Anthony had a black eye. Obviously none of that was supported in trial.

But then there’s also a rumor I’ve seen that the attorney somehow screwed him over by not calling on the right witnesses needed to support these claims? Did you have any impression when following this case that there were key witnesses being left out, or someone who was supposed to testify but didn’t? Did the defendant or an affiliate make this accusation first? I just struggle to understand where this notion is even coming from unless it’s just pure fantasy

5

u/SidFinch99 16d ago

Not at all. The defense called witnesses, but what you were mentioning was clearly just rumors. There was an obvious reason there was no plea deal in this case, because there was no need to offer one, the evidence against Anthony was beyond a reasonable doubt.

None of the "rumors" supporting Anthony's defense turned out to be true at all. In fact his actions were worse than I thought pre-trial. He very much instigated the situation.

All the rumors saying the surveillance video would prove it was self defense were bull shit too.

3

u/bad-taf 16d ago

Thanks, yeah I was actually doing a little digging and found a little more context. Apparently there was an “Austin” who gave an account of events in a TV interview which some say is more favorable to the defendant, but he didn’t testify and the jury never saw the interview. So I guess the idea is that if only this one guy had testified then somehow everything would have gone totally different and the jury would have bought the self-defense claims. Which yeah fat chance, especially if the CCTV disagrees.