ShareThis Page
Westmoreland

Megan's Law offender from Schuylkill County to stand trial in Westmoreland luring case

Paul Peirce
| Wednesday, Dec. 13, 2017, 3:12 p.m.
Edward J. Frisco, 49, a convicted Megan’s Law offender from Schuylkill County, was ordered to stand trial in Westmoreland County for allegedly attempting to lure an 11-year-old Hunker girl from her bus stop.
Edward J. Frisco, 49, a convicted Megan’s Law offender from Schuylkill County, was ordered to stand trial in Westmoreland County for allegedly attempting to lure an 11-year-old Hunker girl from her bus stop.

A convicted Megan's Law offender from Schuylkill County was ordered to stand trial Wednesday in Westmoreland County on charges he attempted to lure an 11-year-old Hunker girl from her school bus stop twice this year.

Edward J. Frisco, 49, was ordered to trial by East Huntingdon District Judge Charles Moore on charges of luring a child into a structure and stalking. He is accused of trying to get the girl into a home in Hunker while she was at her bus stop on Feb. 24 and again March 3.

The girl, who attends Hempfield Area School District, calmly testified before Moore that the first incident occurred Feb. 24 after she got off a school bus on Sandworks Road.

Frisco has been living in the neighborhood with his parents since 2015. He molested a 13-year-old girl in Pottsville, Schuylkill County, in 2012, and was sentenced to serve up to three years in prison after pleading guilty in 2013 to indecent assault and corruption of minors. He is required to register as a Megan's Law offender.

“(Frisco) was outside on the edge of his property and yelled, ‘Hey, kid,' and tried to wave me over with his arm,” the girl testified.

Under questioning from Assistant District Attorney Jennifer Dupilka, the girl said she had no prior contact with Frisco, but her father had warned her that he lived in the neighborhood.

“I heard what he did before. ... It was terrifying,” the girl said.

The victim said after the incident she ran to her home, “closed the blinds, turned on the home alarm system and called my dad.”

She said her father reported the incident to state police in Greensburg.

She testified that the following week, she was waiting for her bus, which was late. She said she saw Frisco outside on the edge of his property line, and he yelled to her again, suggesting she come to his home for sex.

“I froze, but my bus was approaching then. I (telephoned) my dad again ... and he spoke with police,” she said.

“How did it make you feel?” Dupilka asked.

“I was even more terrified than before. I had trouble sleeping,” the girl said.

The girl said she still has trouble sleeping, is still afraid and has had therapy.

State Trooper Brandon Yeager testified he learned Frisco, as a sex offender, cannot have unsupervised contact with anyone younger than 18.

When initially questioned, Frisco denied knowing who the girl was, Yeager said.

“Later, he admitted he knew who the victim was and had been watching her for two years. He told me he suffers from an illness and is attracted to children 11 to 12 years old,” Yeager said under questioning from Dupilka.

“(Frisco) said he knew it was wrong but didn't want to harm her. ... He wanted a friendship,” Yeager said.

Yeager also testified that he learned that at the time of the incidents, Frisco was on a GPS device monitored by officials from Schuylkill County, where he had been paroled, and he wasn't permitted to leave his property.

Frisco's attorney, Stephen M. Misko of Butler, pleaded not guilty on Frisco's behalf.

Frisco was returned to the Westmoreland County Prison, where he has been held on $100,000 bail since his arrest in March. He also is being held on a detainer from Schuylkill, court officials said.

Paul Peirce is a Tribune-Review staff writer. Reach him at 724-850-2860, ppeirce@tribweb.com or via Twitter @ppeirce_trib.

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.

click me