New Fundraising Controversy Erupts as Carmemelllo Anthony’s Family Raises Goal After Indictment

A new wave of controversy has erupted online following the announcement that Carmemelllo Anthony—already the center of an intense public debate—has been indicted on first-degree murder charges in Texas. In the wake of the indictment, his family has reportedly increased their fundraising goal on the platform GiveSendGo from its earlier target of roughly $500,000 to nearly $1.4 million. This move, combined with long-brewing distrust about previous funds, has ignited fierce criticism across social media.

The commentary circulating online paints a highly skeptical picture of the family’s financial decisions. In the video excerpt at the heart of this discussion, the commentator claims he warned viewers weeks earlier that the family would eventually need far more money once the possibility of severe charges became real. According to him, the family did not anticipate a first-degree murder indictment and therefore spent a large portion of their initial funds—reportedly between $400,000 and $500,000—on relocation, security, living expenses, and personal needs rather than reserving funds for impending legal battles.

The indictment, announced publicly and described in the family’s updated fundraiser statement, appears to have triggered their decision to nearly double the campaign goal. The new target—listed as $1,369,725—was quickly rounded up by critics who questioned why the family appeared “modest” in the exact figure while still requesting such a large amount. Online commentators argue that the sudden jump demonstrates a lack of preparation and poor financial management.

At the center of the backlash is the recurring allegation that previous donations were spent too freely. The passage’s narrator argues that any family that had raised half a million dollars should have handled the funds cautiously, especially given the looming threat of serious criminal charges. Instead, he claims, the money may have gone toward relocation, household expenses, or hiring advocates—such as community figure Dominique Alexander—rather than preserving it for legal representation.

A major talking point in the circulating commentary is whether Carmemelllo Anthony even has a lawyer secured. The narrator notes that no attorney has yet appeared in media statements on the family’s behalf, contrasting this with other high-profile cases where defense attorneys quickly establish a public presence. The absence of such representation has fueled speculation about whether funds are being allocated effectively and whether the family is prepared for a full trial.

The Anthony family’s updated statement on GiveSendGo lists a broad range of expenses covered by the campaign: safe relocation, day-to-day living costs, transportation to court, trauma-informed counseling, enhanced security measures, legal counsel, and an investigative team. Supporters argue that these are legitimate costs for a family navigating public scrutiny and a serious criminal case. Critics, however, contend that legal representation should have been prioritized above all else, especially as the family now seeks more than double its original fundraising goal.

The narrator in the video goes further, asserting that the updated message reads as though the family is positioning themselves as victims rather than focusing on the alleged victim in the criminal case. His commentary is openly critical and expresses doubt about claims of threats, leaked addresses, or the extent of hardship described in the statement.

Another major figure discussed in the passage is Dominique Alexander, whom the narrator accuses of inserting himself into the case and framing it within broader conversations about race and self-defense in America. Alexander’s statement suggesting that the case reflects racial injustice has drawn mixed reactions online—some viewing it as solidarity, others as an inflammatory tactic.

Despite the criticism, donations to the new campaign continue to flow steadily. In the video, the narrator highlights a running list of contributions—$100, $50, $25—demonstrating that public support, though controversial, remains strong. He predicts the campaign may reach roughly $700,000 but doubts it will reach the full $1.4 million goal.

The fundraiser increase has also sparked broader questions about transparency, accountability, and online fundraising ethics. Critics argue that the family’s request for additional funds is evidence that earlier donations were mismanaged. Supporters counter that escalating legal costs, relocation needs, and heightened public attention justify the increased goal.

As the commentator notes, the indictment marks a turning point. With first-degree murder now formally on the table, every action taken by the family—including fundraising, public statements, and their choice of advocates—is scrutinized more intensely than before. This scrutiny is unlikely to fade soon. As the case moves toward trial, more information, reactions, and controversies are expected to surface daily.

Whether the family will reach its new fundraising goal remains uncertain, but one thing is clear: the campaign’s evolution has become a major storyline of its own, shaping public opinion long before a jury ever hears the case.