Braddock man jailed in underage online sex case
A 34 year-old Braddock man is accused of posing as a 19 year-old and driving to Boggs to meet two 14-year-old girls he met online for sex.
Joshua B. Patterson, 34, went by the name Joshua Phillips when he first made contact with the girls two months ago on the social networking site myYearbook.com, authorities said. The Leader Times does not reveal the names of minors who are victims of a crime.
Patterson is alleged to have been video chatting with the victims on Skype before making plans to meet them at a location along Ridge Road on May 4.
According to a state police report, the girls became extremely nervous when they realized Patterson appeared much older than 19. He then reportedly put his arms around one of the girls and rubbed his chin against her neck. When she attempted to break free, Patterson continued holding her until the other girl managed to pull her away. The girls said they began to walk away from Patterson when he grabbed one by her hoodie and pulled her back toward him. The girls then became combative and yelled at him, at which point, Patterson got back in his car and drove away.
After an investigation, Patterson was contacted by state police in Kittanning and agreed to be interviewed on May 7. He confessed to the incident and also to meeting several other girls younger than 18 through myYearbook, police said.
Police served a search warrant and seized Patterson's cell phone, laptop, desktop computer and other electronic devices. He was placed in Armstrong County Jail in lieu of $75,000 bond.
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.