Vandergrift man, 27, charged with molesting boy, 14
A Vandergrift man exchanged sexually oriented text messages with a 14-year-old youth before having sex with the boy, Vandergrift police allege.Todd James Fusillo, 27, of the 700 block of Longfellow Street Extended, is accused of involuntary deviate sexual intercourse, indecent assault and other charges.
In an affidavit, an officer said the 14-year-old's parents told police last fall about a text message allegedly from Fusillo that asked the boy to send a photo of his genitals for $50. The police papers also allege another message offered the boy $100 if he would stay over night in Fusillo's house.
Police filed a search warrant with Verizon and got copies of the messages.According to the affidavit, Fusillo confessed to police on March 12 after being asked to talk with them about the allegations.
In the affidavit, Fusillo said he and the boy touched each other sexually and had sex on several occasions between September and October when the boy stayed overnight at Fusillo's residence.
Fusillo is also charged with solicitation, attempting to get a sexual photograph of a minor, unlawful contact with a minor, criminal use of a cellphone and corruption of a minor.
He was arraigned Thursday night and sent to the Westmoreland County jail in lieu of $50,000 cash bond, which he later posted.
He was released pending a preliminary hearing April 2 before District Judge Cheryl Peck Yakopec.
Chuck Biedka is a staff writer for Trib Total Media. He can be reached at 724-226-4711 or firstname.lastname@example.org.
More Valley News Dispatch
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 â 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.