A three judge panel has listened to closing arguments at the murder trial of Charles F. Buck and is set to begin deliberating whether the state has proved beyond a reasonable doubt that Buck killed his wife, Leslie, on May 4, 2002.

Judge Stuart M. Schimelman said that he and the other judges, Joseph J. Purtill and John D. Boland, do not expect to come back into session today, but that they would return to the bench at some point Wednesday, whether to ask a question about the case or “for some other reason.”

The case is coming to an end after more than six weeks of testimony in New London Superior Court. Buck, a 64-year-old electrical contractor, is accused of killing his wife, a 57-year-old schoolteacher, because he was obsessed with a younger woman.

In his summation this morning, prosecutor Lawrence J. Tytla noted the case closed with a “deluge” of expert medical testimony, but he asked the judges not to diminish the testimony of the lay people who had described Buck’s obsessive relationship with Carol Perez, now known as Carol Stephens, who tended bar in downtown Mystic.

“The entire relationship with Carol Perez is right at the heart of this case,” Tytla said. “The time and money he spent, the emotional investment.”

Tytla said it was clear that Buck would call the woman as soon as his wife left the house for work. He noted that co-workers of the woman described Buck’s infatuation with her as “creepy” and said he was at the Drawbridge Inne every day that she worked behind the bar.

Tytla estimated that Buck spent $30,000 on the woman, who is now known as Carol Perez Stephens, before the death of his wife. Tytla said Buck spent more than $300,000 on her after his wife’s death. Tytla briefly touched on Mrs. Buck’s kidnapping, two days before her death, by a friend of Buck. He noted that on the day of Mrs. Buck’s death, before her body was discovered, Buck told two people his wife was his “whole life,” and he did not know what he would do without her. He said Buck was speaking as if his wife was already dead.

Tytla described the crime scene, where Mrs. Buck was found dead at the bottom of a staircase, as “puzzling, perplexing and not consistent.” He noted that there was no transfer of blood or tissue to the staircase to indicate she had fallen. He emphasized the deep wound on Mrs. Buck’s forehead, which the medical examiner that autopsied her determined was from blunt trauma, and the marks on her neck, which expert medical examiners said were a sign that she had been strangled. He said the medical experts for the defense who testified that Mrs. Buck died of heart disease had not written down their opinions before the trial and so their opinions were “malleable” until the minute they took the witness stand.

“You need to look at all the evidence in the context of the totality of the case,” Tytla said.  

Defense attorney Hubert J. Santos said of his client’s relationship with the bartender, “We had a situation here that we see every day, where a man is in love with his wife, but leaves the straight and narrow by getting involved at some level with another woman.”

He emphasized that in three conversations between Buck and Stephens that were recorded by police, Buck insisted that he did not kill his wife and never said anything incriminating. Santos then went through the testimony of five medical examiners and other experts who had different opinions as to the cause and manner of Mrs. Buck’s death. The state’s medical examiner ruled that Mrs. Buck died of head injuries but said the manner of her death could not be determined. Two prominent medical examiners for the state testified that Mrs. Buck was the victim of strangulation. Two medical examiners for the defense attributed her death to a heart condition known as myocarditis.

“The bottom line is, no one knows,” Santos said. “They’re giving their best opinion based on their experience. So if they don’t know, I don’t know how the court could be persuaded beyond a reasonable doubt.”

Listening to today’s arguments were Leslie Buck’s brother, Richard Edmonston, a group of her friends who have faithfully followed the trial and spectators interested in the high profile and complex case.