Level Green man faces child pornography charges
The state Attorney General's Office charged a Level Green man last week with possession and distribution of child pornography.
Authorities accuse Jeffrey G. Pearson, 41, of Olive Drive, of sharing six videos of children engaged in sex acts on the BitTorrent file-sharing site in January and having another 15 videos on electronic devices at his home when they served a search warrant on Feb. 28.
He faces 15 counts of possession of child pornography, six counts of distributing child pornography and one count of criminal use of a communication facility.
Authorities said Pearson, who bought his home in December after living in Penn Hills, was released from the Westmoreland County Prison after posting $75,000 bail Saturday. Harrison City District Judge Helen Kistler has scheduled a preliminary hearing for March 11.
In the criminal complaint, Special Agent Lorraine Fascetti of the Attorney General's Office wrote that she accessed six films Pearson is accused of sharing that appeared to depict children between the ages of 3 and 11 years old engaged in sexual acts and poses.
Fascetti said Pearson also is accused of having similar videos on his computer involving children believed to be between the ages of 5 and 15.
Chris Foreman is a staff writer for Trib Total Media. He can be reached at 412-856-7400, ext. 8671, or email@example.com.
Subscribe today! Click here for our subscription offers.
Show commenting policy
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.