VIDEO: Closing Arguments At The Crockam Trial – Jury To Reconvene And Continue Deliberations Tomorrow

VIDEO: “As I told you, there was no DNA, and in fact there was not”, Defense Attorney Mark Fury said to the jury in his closing arguments today. Fury added that the reason there was no DNA – or blood from the officer – was possibly because he was not there. “That’s a possibility.”

Assistant Prosecutor Heisler ended the closing arguments by asking the jury for a guilty verdict on the various charges. 

“Based on the evidence presented ladies and gentleman, I respectfully ask you to return a verdict of guilty against this defendant for the murder of Christopher Matlosz and verdict of guilty on the weapons charges, thank you.”

As earlier reported, the jury will continue their deliberation tomorrow. TLS/OCC POOL/TOM COSTELLO.

This content, and any other content on TLS, may not be republished or reproduced without prior permission from TLS. Copying or reproducing our content is both against the law and against Halacha. To inquire about using our content, including videos or photos, email us at [email protected].

Stay up to date with our news alerts by following us on Twitter, Instagram and Facebook.

**Click here to join over 15,000 receiving our Whatsapp Status updates!**

**Click here to join the official TLS WhatsApp Community!**

Got a news tip? Email us at [email protected], Text 415-857-2667, or WhatsApp 609-661-8668.


  1. to #1, mb u dont uderstand that u he is innocent like nu, untill proven guilty, there is no concrete evidence, call me dum, bit thats the law!!!!

  2. At times one can actually take a liking to an actor. I HATE this actor; the attorney for “MR.” Crockham. He should be ashamed of himself to stand up there and prance around giving lectures about this man’s innocence. He borders on total arrogance.

  3. #6- Mark Fury did not lecture about Crockam’s innocence; rather, he stated that there is insufficient evidence proving that Crockam was the killer. The standard in a criminal trial is beyond a reasonable doubt. Fury made the case that reasonable doubt exists, e.g. no DNA.

    A criminal defense lawyer’s job is to show that reasonable doubt exists, not that the defendant did not commit the act.

  4. I dont think if I was on that jury i would jump to guilty. The defense has a painted a solid picture that theres no DNA or weapon that ties him to this horrible crime.

  5. Two of the easiest things to eliminate…. DNA and a weapon. Too bad TV has people brainwashed that there is always DNA left at every crime scene

  6. What does DNA have to do with anything in this case. if you shoot someone from 2 feet away how on earth should the person have come in contact with the officers DNA.The shooter had no contact with the officer. This is just a defense attorney saying things that have nothing to do with the case.

  7. To # 12: Agreed – The DNA argument is the stupidest one I heard so far…
    Was there anybody else’s DNA at the scene? Someone had to be the killer, no? If so the fact there is no DNA evidence doesn’t prove anything one way or the other!!

    To #6: I also thought this defense attorney is a clown…the type to sell you the elixir of life…
    Not once did I hear him saying he IS innocent; he keeps on saying he MAY be innocent…well that says it all Sir!!

  8. GUILTY, GUILTY, GUILTY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! First of all he fled, does that say say he is innocent., NOT. If he was not guilty, why would he flee. And he was found days later, do you think he would be wearing the same clothes, NOT. Or still have the weapon, NOT. Wake up, get these lousy (moderated) off the street starting with him. Fry the (moderated)………………………..

  9. seems to me that crock did not come in contact physically to leave DNA you have to have contact with the person to gather DNA.
    furthermore when he shot matlosz he shot him from a distance that made it difficult to have blood splatter on him. Crock lawyer said that he left lakewood after the shooting. that by itself proves he is guilty. Why would he leave so suddenly. Only someone that is guilty would run ,the way he did

    I’m not impressed with his lawyer,in fact i think his lawyer convicted him.

  10. bottom line is we all know he is guilty. His brother threaten to shoot up lakewood H.S. How on earth does a town allow these low life people to even live here. why lakewood H.S.?
    because (moderated)

Comments are closed.