Dark Downeast - The Suspicious Death of Leslie Buck (Connecticut)

Episode Date: September 4, 2025

From the moment investigators stepped foot into the home of Leslie and Charlie Buck in the spring of 2002 following a 9-1-1 call, there was something off about the circumstances of Leslie’s untimely death. Leslie had just survived a violent kidnapping two days earlier, and autopsy findings left the manner of her death anything but clear-cut. This episode is a continuation of Leslie’s story. Be sure to listen to The Kidnapping of Leslie Buck (Connecticut) first so you’re caught up on everything that’s happened so far. I’m going to take you through the suspicious death case and all of the evidence that amounted to probable cause for an arrest… As well as the bombshell report and supporting expert testimony that attributed Leslie’s death to something that had nothing to do with the prime suspect.View source material and photos for this episode at: darkdowneast.com/lesliebuck-part-twoDark Downeast is an audiochuck and Kylie Media production hosted by Kylie Low.Follow @darkdowneast on Instagram, Facebook, and TikTokTo suggest a case visit darkdowneast.com/submit-case

From the moment investigators stepped foot into the home of Leslie and Charlie Buck in the spring of 2002 following a 911 call, there was something off about the circumstances of Leslie's untimely death. Leslie had just survived a violent kidnapping two days earlier, and autopsy findings left the manner of her death anything but clear-cut. This episode is a continuation of Leslie's story, so I recommend starting with the episode immediately before. this one before listening here. I'm going to take you through the investigative findings and the evidence that amounted to probable cause for an arrest, as well as the bombshell report and supporting expert testimony that attributed Leslie's death to something that had nothing to do with the prime suspect. I'm Kylie Lowe, and this is the case of Leslie Buck, Part 2 on Dark Down East.

In the final days of 57-year-old Leslie Buck's life, she survived the unimaginable. A man once considered a friend of the Buck family, Russell Kirby, attacked Leslie as she got out of her car on the night of May 2, 2002, incapacitating her with a stun gun and violently assaulting her before he tied her limbs and kidnapped her in her own car. Leslie's own quick thinking and courage are to thank for her escape that night. When Russell loosened the restraints for a brief moment and stepped out of the car to check on some car trouble, she used a spare key to speed away from her assailant and to what she believed would be the safety of her own home. But Leslie's home was not the sanctuary it should have been.

Whether by accident or by someone else's hand or some other unexplained cause, Leslie died less than 48 hours after her kidnapping. The wounds on her head were indicative of some kind of blunt trauma. But lacking evidence on the stairwell where she was found, Dr. Malkashaw could not conclusively determine a manner of death. As the investigation into Leslie's death got underway, a jury found Russell Kirby guilty of kidnapping and assault. But the verdict did not clear up why he attacked Leslie Buck.

The motivation behind Russell's attack on Leslie remained a major question mark, and answering that question might shed light on the true nature of Leslie's subsequent death. Was Russell's attack on Leslie the misunderstanding Russell claimed it to be? Did he truly act in self-defense? Or did he do it for money? Did he plan to hold her ransom? Or did someone offer him money to frighten Leslie or worse? As of Russell's conviction and sentence, Leslie's Manor of Death was still undetermined, and it remained under investigation for years, and her husband, Charlie Buck, remained under tremendous suspicion for Leslie's death. The undetermined ruling of Leslie's manner of death presented the biggest hurdles for investigators.

Without a determination, whether it was an accident or homicide, they really couldn't progress the case to a point of an arrest or closure. So, investigators sought new opinions from experts out of state to see what they thought about the autopsy and evidence at the scene of Leslie's death. On July 15, 2004, Dr. Michael Baden reviewed Leslie's autopsy reports and photos of Leslie's body, the crime scene, and videos from inside the buck home. Dr. Baden was the director of Medical Legal Investigations Unit for the New York State Police. Now, in his professional opinion, Leslie's manner of death was homicides. but not blunt force trauma. Dr. Baden was quote-unquote concerned about the minimal brain injuries despite Leslie's skull fracture, and he believed that the injuries to Leslie's neck were due

to asphyxiation. In his view, that's what ultimately caused her death. This new opinion from an outside expert didn't push the case in one direction or another. So by May of 2006, four years after Leslie's death, her family decided to take the only action afforded to them in this situation. They filed a wrongful death lawsuit against Charlie. According to reporting by Elaine Griffin for the Hartford Current and Ethan Ruin for the day, Leslie's estate argued that Charlie was having an extramarital affair at the time of Leslie's death and that he solicited someone, that someone being Russell Kirby, to take Leslie's life. A forensic pathologist named Dr. Barbara C. Wolf, who was employed as a medical examiner in the state of Florida,

she provided another opinion of Leslie's death as part of this civil, wrongful death suit. Fun fact, Dr. Wolf was part of the defense team that helped secure an acquittal for O.J. Simpson. Dr. Wolf stated in an affidavit that in her professional opinion, and in terms of a reasonable degree of medical certainty, Leslie's injuries were not consistent with an accidental fall in the staircase where she was found. Dr. Wolf found that there was no existing condition or prior injury that contributed to Leslie's death, and her death was, in fact, caused by blunt head trauma and asphyxia due to neck compression. The manner of death, in Dr. Wolf's opinion, was homicide. The civil wrongful death suit now wasn't the only case making its way through the court system

in 2006. While the investigation into Leslie's suspicious death continued, Russell Kirby managed to successfully get his conviction thrown out. The Connecticut Supreme Court overturned Russell Kirby's conviction in October of 2006, finding that Leslie's statements identifying Russell as her attacker that she made to a dispatcher and an officer should not have been admitted into evidence because it violated his constitutional right to confront the witness against him. Those were some of the precise statements Russell tried to have thrown out pre-trial, but they were eventually allowed by the trial judge.

The other statements that Leslie made to medical personnel would remain as evidence, as would Russell's own statements to police about kidnapping Leslie for money. In January of 2007, the state announced their intention to seek a new trial for Russell Kirby, but later that year, they also offered a plea deal, 12 years in prison if he entered a guilty plea. He'd already served five years of his previous sentence before the conviction was overturned. Russell rejected the plea deal. and opted to go to trial.

By this time, Leslie's suspicious death case had changed hands and now had the eyes of the chief state's attorney's office cold case unit, though her case was not technically considered cold. The unit simply had more resources and would bring a fresh perspective to the evidence. Maybe that team of detectives and prosecutors could make sense of the conflicting opinions and inconclusive evidence. It didn't happen overnight, but it seems that the fresh perspective

was exactly what the case needed after all. Because on January 22nd, 2009, Charlie Buck was pulling up to the Tim Horton's in downtown Mystic, as he did every day, when police intercepted his morning coffee run and put him in handcuffs. He was arrested and charged with the murder of his wife. The office of the chief medical examiner still had not changed the ruling about how Leslie sustained the head injuries that caused her death. Her death was not and had not ever been ruled a homicide at that point, yet the investigation had uncovered enough probable cause to secure his arrest. The evidence against Charlie was largely circumstantial. He made several inconsistent statements regarding his whereabouts on the day of her death May 4, 2002. You'll

remember there was that piece of wire that could have been similar to a possible murder. weapon, and Charlie's comments to witnesses about using such a wire to hit someone in the head. Not least of all was Charlie's relationship with Carol Perez and denial of such a relationship that looked a lot like motive to want his wife gone. Let's dig into Charlie's alleged inconsistent statements because they are central to the case the state had built against him. So in late April of 2006, police had executed a search warrant at the Buck residence at 77 Mason's Island Road and Mystic, and at Charlie's business, Buck Electric, at 126 Elm Street. According to reporting by Joe Voitas for the Hartford Current, police seized financial records, bank deposit slips, checks, ledgers, and an employee tax return.

Remember, Charlie told officers that on the day of Leslie's death, he had gone to his office to do some paperwork. The item seized during the search might be able to confirm if he was telling the truth about his activities. that day. As officers made stacks of files for further investigation, Charlie stood outside with another officer talking freely about his wife and the day he found her dead at the bottom of the stairs. A few details during that voluntary conversation differed from his original statement and first interview back in 2002. In 2006, Charlie told the officer that he stopped at the fire department on the way to his office on May 4, 2002, and spoke to a fellow firefighter while he was there. But in his original statement, he stopped into the fire department on his way home.

Investigator spoke to the firefighter, and he said that Charlie stopped into the station between 3.15 and 3.30 p.m. He was gone by the time the fire department was toned out at 406 p.m. for a search and rescue. Coincidentally, the call was near Charlie. Street. It was unrelated to Leslie, but the firefighter found it odd that Charlie did not respond to the call, especially since he lived in the area. Another inconsistency, in one statement Charlie said he went straight to his office after leaving home the day of Leslie's death, but in a second interview he said he made a stop at the drawbridge inn before making it to his office. Carol Perez worked at the Drawbridge Inn. Charlie had also previously told police that he and Leslie returned home

from visiting Leslie's mother on the day of her death around 1.45 p.m. However, a witness spotted Charlie driving his M.G convertible with Leslie in the passenger seat at 1.50 p.m. heading in the direction of their home. It was just a five-minute discrepancy, sure, but this witness also said that she waved at the box like she always did, but they didn't wave back, and Charlie looked angry. Based on this witness account, the investigation determined that 150 p.m. is the last time Leslie could be accounted for alive. And she was with Charlie at the time. One of the key elements of Charlie's story was that he went to his office on the afternoon of May 4, 2002, to do paperwork. Specifically, he said he entered checks into a ledger book, made out of deposit slip, paid bills, completed a

941 coupon for federal withholding, made out a check to take to the bank, and several other entries that would have been dated in documents. However, during that search in April of 2006, investigators seized the ledger book and deposit slips and other statements from May of 2002, and there were no entries for May 4th. A check with the bank determined there were no transactions on the business account on the 4th. A deposit slip was made out for the 6th, but not the 4th. forth, it wasn't hard proof that Charlie didn't actually do any paperwork on the date of his wife's death. He could have predated things if we're looking for an explanation, but it was a strong suggestion that he wasn't doing what he claimed to be doing that afternoon. The arrest warrant

affidavit listed other evidence too. Charlie was seen crying in his van sometime before Leslie's death, saying that if he tried to leave his wife, she'd take half of his money. Other witnesses said that Leslie approached them in the days preceding her death to ask about divorce and domestic violence. The full scope of evidence against Charlie Buck wasn't listed out in the arrest warrant, but by the time the probable cause hearing rolled around, more details of the case were made public. Carol Perez, who had a new last name at the time of Charlie's arrest, she was a primary witness for the prosecution. She testified at the probable cause hearing that her relationship with Charlie was never sexual.

She was clear that they were friends, and he may have hugged her one time when she was upset, but nothing else. Must have been a really good friend, though, because Carol also testified that Charlie bought her a house, on top of giving her all those other gifts and cash for expenses. Carol said that after Leslie died, Charlie even proposed and gave her a two or three-carat diamond ring. She didn't say during the probable cause hearing if she accepted the proposal or not, but Carol did testify that she later pawned the ring for several thousand dollars. Carol's testimony was convincing proof of a relationship of some kind, sure, but not of murder. Carol was adamant that Charlie never admitted to killing Leslie, and she believed him.

She never told police otherwise. After hearing testimony from Carol and other witnesses, a judge determined there was probable cause for Charlie to be tried on the murder charge. It would be several months before he had. actually faced trial, though. In the meantime, the second kidnapping trial for Charlie's former friend Russell Kirby began. The case against Russell was largely the same the second time around, Sands the evidence that the state Supreme Court previously found wasn't admissible. And once again, the defense attorney wanted to call Charlie Buck as a witness, but because he'd already shown he had every intention of invoking his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination, and putting him

on the stand might prejudice potential jurors in his own forthcoming murder trial, it was decided that Charlie didn't have to appear, and his lawyer could invoke the Fifth Amendment right on Charlie's behalf. Now, one thing that was different in the second trial was Russell's testimony in his own defense. It got more elaborate. Russell claimed that the tasers found in Leslie's car were part of an experiment he was part of

with a quote-unquote private individual to test the use of tasers to get more mileage out of cars? He also said that he actually used one of the tasers on the night of May 2nd in an attempt to jumpstart his car that had broken down, which was the whole reason why

he was in the Buck's garage to begin with. But Russell also testified that he didn't just use the stun gun on his vehicle. He admitted that he used the stun gun on Leslie because, quote, she just sort of exploded when she saw him and she was, in a violent mood, end quote.

Russell's version of events failed to convince a second jury he was telling the truth. In February of 2010, he was convicted for a second time of second-degree kidnapping and third-degree assault. He was sentenced to 21 years in prison, with credit for the eight he'd already served. Now, finally, it was almost full steam ahead to the trial of Charlie Buck with jury selection set to begin in September of 2010. That is, until a new report raised even more questions about who, or rather what, could have killed Leslie Buck. Just before jury selection was about to start for Charlie's trial, an August 27th, 2010 letter from Yale pathologist Steve E. Downing shared his professional opinion that Leslie died of a heart condition called lymphocytic myocarditis. This specific heart condition was previously identified

by Dr. Malka Shah, the medical examiner who performed Leslie's autopsy. However, Dr. Shaw did not list the condition as a cause of death. Charlie and his defense attorney had been saying since he was arrested that Leslie had a heart condition that could have been exacerbated by the kidnapping ordeal she survived 48 hours before she was found dead. It was Charlie's argument that his wife could have gotten dizzy and fell down the stairs, causing her head wound and subsequent death. The report from the Yale pathologist didn't get the charges thrown out, but it did contribute to a judge lowering Charlie's bail from $2.5 million to $1.5 million. He posted bond on September 22nd, 2010 after 20 months in jail awaiting trial.

And then in October of that year, it was decided that Charlie would not face a jury, after all, but instead his case would be heard by a panel of three judges. There are a number of things that can influence a defendant's decision to pursue a panel of judges versus a jury, and in this case, one of the reasons was that the defense attorney felt that judges were better suited to hear the complex medical testimony. Also, only two of the three judges needed to agree on a verdict. versus a unanimous decision from 12 members of a jury. Finally, more than eight years after Leslie's suspicious death, the trial of her husband began in November of 2010.

Dr. Malkashaw testified to her findings that Leslie died of deep head wounds, but that she could not conclusively determine what caused those wounds. One of the reasons she couldn't determine a manner of death was because Leslie had two separate head injuries. Dr. Shaw said a fall down the stairs could have caused Leslie's skull fracture, which was severe enough to cause electrical imbalances in her brain and contribute to sudden death. But a fall down the stairs, in Dr. Shaw's opinion, would not cause the laceration on Leslie's forehead.

So what did the prosecution theorize caused that particular injury? The presiding judge allowed the prosecution to introduce a 600-volt electrical wire as evidence, strictly for demonstrative purposes. Witness testimony indicated that Charlie kept a wire like it in his home for protection, and he called the lengths of wire, quote, equalizers, end quote. A former employee of Buck Electric told investigators about something Charlie used to say. He'd hold up a piece of 500 MCM circular mills wire, like the one shown at trial, and say, if you wanted to hurt someone, you hit them in the head with this. The defense tried their best to keep that sample wire out of evidence since there was no proof

that precise wire was the actual murder weapon. However, the state successfully reasoned that it may not have been the exact wire, but a witness said Charlie kept a wire like this, and Charlie talked about using it as a weapon, and Leslie's injuries are consistent with a weapon of this size and shape, so it was relevant and admissible. Florida medical examiner Dr. Barbara Wolfe, who already contributed an opinion on Leslie's death for the civil wrongful death case against Charlie, also testified at Charlie's trial that Leslie died from blunt head trauma and asphyxiation due to neck compression. Dr. Wolf stated that it appeared the scene had been altered in some way too because there were no sharp objects

on or around the stairs that could have caused the deep cut on Leslie's forehead. Based on the bloodstains on the front of Leslie's clothing, Dr. Wolf was inclined to believe that Leslie sustained the wound while upright. If it instead happened as she was falling down, Dr. Wolf would have expected to see bloodstains on the stairs, but there wasn't any. Yet another expert testified for the state, Dr. Michael Baden, who said, quote, it is my opinion to a reasonable degree of medical certainty that the major cause of Mrs. Buck's death was asphyxia, end quote. He suggested and even demonstrated that whoever strangled Leslie did so with the collar of the shirt she was wearing.

Dr. Baden said that her shirt as the weapon would have contributed to the irregular blood-spotting on the shirt itself. If not the shirt, the killer could have also put Leslie in a carotid chokehold, according to Dr. Baden. Supporting his opinion was the presence of patikial hemorrhages, which are little red dots in Leslie's eyes. they are a signature of strangulation. In an attempt to challenge this testimony about asphyxiation and the marks on Leslie's neck, the defense team tried to raise testimony about the injuries Leslie sustained during the kidnapping two days before her death. They asked the witness, could the abrasions on her neck have been caused by Russell Kirby when he

attacked her? Well, maybe, but it was difficult to determine because there were no detailed photos of Leslie's neck taken when she was evaluated at the hospital. She also did not complain about neck pain or injury to her neck. In summary, it was Dr. Baden's opinion that asphyxiation was the major cause of Leslie's death and head injuries contributed. He determined that any heart condition found during the autopsy was unrelated to Leslie's death. But we'll get deeper into the heart condition in a minute. Several former employees at the Drawbridge Inn testified to their recollections of Charlie, and all the time he spent posted up on a bar stool while

Carol Perez was working. One former employee testified about the time Charlie allegedly offered him $7,000 half up front, half after, he beat up Carol's boyfriend who was allegedly harassing her. The witness claimed that Charlie said he no longer wanted the boyfriend breathing. The witness did not accept the money to beat up anyone. The drawbridge in employee that everyone, was most eager to hear from, was Carol Perez herself. Her testimony stayed fairly consistent with what she shared during the probable cause hearing and what was contained within the affidavit that preceded Charlie's arrest. She said her relationship with Charlie was nothing more than a friendship built on a mutual need for someone to confide in. Sure, he bought her lots of things, but that's because

he cared and wanted to help her and her children. I should note that according to the arrest warrant affidavit, investigators determined that Charlie had given Carol over $300,000 in gifts total before and after Leslie's death. The investigation showed that Carol had purchased a house for $235,000 without a mortgage sometime after Leslie's death. A real estate agent said during the earlier civil suit proceedings that a man who looked a lot like Charlie Buck came to the closing with Carol. Carol testified that when Charlie asked her to marry him, she said, she'd think about it, but they never actually got married. There were other witnesses, though, who testified that Charlie referred to Carol as his fiancé, and several witnesses suggested that

Carol's claim she and Charlie were just friends was a simplification or minimization of the truth. A car dealer testified that when Charlie and Carol came in to buy her a new car, trading in a sports car he just got her a few months earlier, they were, quote, very familiar, holding hands, giggling, very inappropriate, I thought, end quote. The witness said they were acting like high schoolers. The panel of judges heard all about the inconsistencies in Charlie's statements, as well as what the investigation had determined to be the actual timeline of his movements on the day of his wife's death. The state had argued a strong means, motive, opportunity, but it was an enormously circumstantial argument,

whereas the defense believed they'd identified solid proof of what caused Leslie's death and it wasn't the person on trial for murder. The defense presented their case. Leslie died of a heart condition.

Stonington Police patrolman Timothy Thornton was one of the first on the scene following the 911 call on the night Russell abducted Leslie. According to Officer Thornton's testimony, Leslie complained that her chest hurt at that time. The 911 call audio also proves that Leslie complained of chest pain on the night of her kidnapping. It's difficult to decipher, but she said, it's difficult to decipher, but she said, quote, I got bad chest pains, end quote. However, and as the prosecution pointed out, Leslie did not say anything about chest pain at the hospital, nor did it come up again.

Charlie did not mention Leslie complaining of chest pain in his early statement to police either, only that she said she was sore. EMTs testified that Leslie showed no signs of cardiac distress after the kidnapping. defense witness Vincent J. DeMaio was a retired medical examiner from Texas and author of a respected book on forensic pathology. After reviewing the autopsy, photos, and visiting the Buck's home to look at the staircase, Dr. DeMaio concluded that Leslie died from myocarditis. He presented his theory. Leslie lost consciousness and fell forward and up the staircase. She hit her head and then regained consciousness. She then stood up, blood got on her clothes, and she fell again. As for the injury on the back of Leslie's neck, Dr. DiMaio said those marks were artifacts, meaning they were

irrelevant to the autopsy. He said they were caused when her body was exposed to cold air in the morgue. Dr. DeMaio's assessment that Leslie's head injury was from falling upward was in direct contrast to the state's theory of her head injury that said it was caused by blunt trauma, from being struck in a downward direction. Another defense expert witness, forensic pathologist and neuropathologist Lubisha Dragovic, also testified that Leslie died from myocarditis, specifically acute necrotizing myocarditis, which is described by a reporter for the day as, quote, an inflammation and rotting of the heart muscle, end quote.

The pathologist acknowledged that disagreement among competent expert, was possible, and testified that the others may have improperly viewed the slides taken of Leslie's heart. However, he was confident that her heart was to blame for her death, not a head injury, not being struck in the head. According to this expert, there was no evidence of a brain injury, strangulation, or a skull fracture. He referenced her elevated heart rate at the hospital 110 beats per minute, which was his evidence that her heart was struggling. On top of evidence that Leslie was suffering from a heart condition at the time of her death, for the defense, it also came down to the fact that Charlie Buck never wavered in his claims

of innocence. During the investigation, Carol had agreed to wear a wire and attempted to elicit a confession from Charlie. During that recorded conversation, Carol told him they could rekindle whatever relationship they had, if he was just honest with her about Leslie. She said that if Charlie killed her, she'd be okay with it, but she just wanted to know, and then they could get out of town together. But Charlie was adamant and never uttered even a hint of an admission to Carol. Quote, it had nothing to do with hurting my wife. I could not ever hurt my wife. I had nothing to do with Russell Kirby trying to hurt my wife. I did not hire him. I had absolutely nothing to do with it. End quote. The trial was a battle of the experts. How so many experts with specialized knowledge

can come to such different conclusions is hard to comprehend. No doubt the panel of judges had to be struggling with whose testimony to assign the most weight, which version of the opinion about Leslie's death was true. The state didn't have an actual murder weapon. There was no actual blood on anybody's hands to say that Charlie killed his wife. What the state did have was a mountain of motive. Charlie appeared to be in love with someone else, someone he showered with gifts, and supposedly asked to marry him. There was also a suggestion of a murder weapon. Charlie was known to keep a heavy-duty copper wire in his house that witnesses said he talked about using to hit someone in the head if they ever gave him any trouble. What's more, there was no blood or tissue on the stairs or any surface near

the stairs to suggest Leslie hit her head in a fall. On top of that, the marks on her neck were indication, according to the prosecution, that Leslie was also strangled. But the defense had two expert witnesses of their own, confident in their professional opinions that Leslie's heart was to blame for all of it. Besides, Charlie had never uttered even a hint of a confession or an admission. He'd steadfastly clung to his innocence and insisted he would never harm his wife because Leslie was his whole world. As images shown to the panel of judges proved, photos of Leslie still adorned the walls at Charlie's home even years after her death. On December 15, 2010, the panel of three judges faced with deciding Charlie's fate

returned with their decision. After three hours of deliberation, the panel found Charlie Buck not guilty of murdering his wife. the freshly acquitted Charlie spoke with waiting reporters outside the courthouse after the verdict was delivered. He said hearing the words not guilty was, quote, the best Christmas gift I could ever get, and then added, it's the second best, the best would be to get Leslie back, end quote. In November of 2011, Leslie's estate withdrew the wrongful death suit against Charlie and the battle in probate court came to an too. Leslie's estate agreed to settle with Charlie and divide the proceeds of her annuities and remaining unpaid life insurance policies with him. Charlie quietly transitioned back into life

as the guy who was not convicted of killing his wife. But despite the verdict, his trial and the court of public opinion continued indefinitely. He struggled to find clients for his previously steady business. People avoided him in the grocery store. Others openly commented that Charlie should have left town. Charlie was living in the same building as his business since he'd sold the home he once shared with Leslie, the scene of her death, to his attorneys, to cover the cost of his defense.

The attorneys then sold the home, and the new owners applied for a permit to tear it down and build something new on the lot. As Demolition Day approached, Charlie showed up at the home several times saying he wanted to take a few things of sentimental value before it was torn down, including two wall sconces and a wind

indicator from the roof. The new owners warned him to stay away and asked police to do the same, but Charlie could not abide by the warnings and was seen driving past the house and talking to workers on site. In Charlie's words, quote, if you lived somewhere for 36 and a half years with the love of your life, wouldn't you want to go back? End quote. The home was torn down in January of 2015, and a new one stands in its place today. It's unclear if Charlie ever obtained the sentimental items he was after. The following year, in February of 2016, Charlie appeared on the Dr. Phil television show sitting across from Carol Perez. I've watched clips readily available online, and it was the exact type of awkward confrontation you'd expect from a daytime television

show of this nature. Charlie talked about his long since over feelings towards Carol, while Carol denied ever having romantic interest in him. And then Charlie accused Carol of conning him out of money. After that appearance, Charlie reportedly tried to get on the Judge Judy show to bring a suit against two unnamed people he said had wronged him. He did not end up appearing on that program. In the fall of that same year, Charlie sustained serious injuries after he fell off the roof of his house. He died about six weeks later on October 12, 2016. His death certificate states that he died as the result of, quote, complications of blunt impact injury of neck, end quote. Meanwhile, Russell Kirby was released from prison in July of 2022, after serving 18 years of his 21-year sentence.

He was placed in supervised custody and granted community supervision. He has never spoken publicly about Leslie's death outside of a courtroom. My attempts to locate Russell were unsuccessful. Leslie Marie Edminton Buck spent decades of her life dedicated to the education of young children at Dean's Mill School in Stonington, Connecticut. She was passionate about fueling her students' love for reading, and that legacy lived on in a big way after her death. The Leslie E. Buck Memorial Fund supported a book scholarship program called Helping Hands, which provided financial aid for kids to purchase books from the Scholastic Book Program. The school created a reading garden with a memorial bench, and each year, the elementary school

hosted an annual Leslie E. Buck Reading Day. The fund also bought books to help replenish libraries destroyed by Hurricane Katrina. In other years, Leslie's Memorial Fund sponsored field trips for students, guest readers at school, and other initiatives to ensure kids not only loved reading, but had access to books to foster that love. Whatever you believe about Leslie's death, one truth remains. It came far too soon. She had more to give, more to teach, more lives to touch. We saw that unmistakably when after surviving a harrowing ordeal, she still walked into her classroom just hours later, determined to be there for her students. That unwavering commitment is the measure of who she was. Leslie's life may have been cut short, but her influence did not end with her final day. It continues in

every student she inspired, every lesson she taught, and every heart that carries her story forward. Next week is an off week for Darkdowneast, but I'll be back the following Thursday with a new episode. Thank you for listening to Dark Down East. for this case at darkdowneast.com. Be sure to follow the show on Instagram at Darkdowneast. This platform is for the families and friends who have lost their loved ones

and for those who are still searching for answers. I'm not about to let those names or their stories get lost with time. I'm Kylie Lowe, and this is Dark Down East. Dark Down East is a production of Kylie Media and audio chuck. I think Chuck would approve.