Tearful teen testifies against Uniontown sexual assault suspect
A 13-year-old girl testified in a Fayette County courtroom Tuesday that a 64-year-old man would undress and sexually assault her during overnight visits to his residence.
John Dale Stewart Sr. of Uniontown is on trial, charged with numerous counts of involuntary deviate sexual intercourse, aggravated indecent assault and corruption of minors.
The girl took the stand Tuesday afternoon in the courtroom of Senior Judge John F. Wagner Jr., often crying and speaking so softly that she had to repeat her answers.
The Tribune-Review does not identify alleged victims of sexual assault.
The girl said that when she was much younger, she regularly visited Stewart. The sexual assaults went on over the course of several years, she said.
“Do you remember him doing something to you that made you feel bad or mad?” asked assistant District Attorney Linda Cordaro.
The girl said Stewart would wake her and “touch me, in my private area, below my waist.”
During questioning by defense attorney Brian Salisbury, the girl said she thought the incidents happened more than 10 times, but less than 20 times.
“You liked staying at (Stewart's) house?” he asked.
“Yes,” she answered.
The girl said that when a relative asked if Stewart had touched her, she denied it.
“I did not want to tell her because she has a bad heart,” the girl said.
“Is (Stewart) important to you?” Salisbury asked.
“Not anymore,” she said.
Testimony is set to continue at 9:30 a.m. Wednesday.
Mary Pickels is a staff writer for Trib Total Media. She can be reached at 724-836-5401.
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.