La Crosse TribuneAn Onalaska priest accused of having three sexually graphic pictures of nearly nude children stood mute Wednesday to a felony charge filed against him.
A not guilty plea was entered on behalf [...because hewon't liealready admitted his guilt] of the Rev. Patrick Umberger, 59, to one count of possession of child pornography after a judge bound the priest over for trial when he waived his preliminary hearing in La Crosse County Circuit Court. The case is set next for an Oct. 19 status conference.
Umberger, a priest at St. Patrick’s Catholic Parish in Onalaska since 2005, was arrested July 14 at the rectory when state agents said they discovered the photographs on his computer, according to the complaint.
The priest told a state agent he is sexually attracted to boys and young men and searched the Internet for pictures of boys 12 to 15 years old, the complaint stated.[Anyone know how to find the report?]
He denied ever having sexual contact with children but did admit to using a software program that regularly cleaned his computer hard drive.
Umberger, who also taught at St. Patrick School and is chaplain at Aquinas Middle School, has been removed from active ministry pending the investigation.
His arrest comes almost one year after a family and two Wisconsin Dells Noah’s Ark Water Park employees said they saw Umberger follow several young boys into a bathroom by a children’s pool area July 22, 2009, according to a Lake Delton police report.
Umberger was found standing next to a 10-year-old using a urinal and told an officer he was near the restrooms because he had prostate problems and had to urinate often, the report stated. [By the way, Umberger was there with his sister and her family, not by himself....]
Park officials revoked his season pass and placed him on a watch list. [But that doesn't explain why he had a season pass]
Umberger told state agents that La Crosse Diocese attorney Jim Birnbaum and vicar for clergy the Rev. Joe Hirsch counseled him about the incident after receiving a letter about the water park incident.
Birnbaum said previously he discussed the incident with Umberger but couldn’t recall when or who else was present at the meeting, and that no restrictions were placed on the priest after verifying his medical condition. [Does it really matter if Listecki was there or not? If Umberger lied to all of them, what else could they have done?]
The diocese issued a statement Friday saying it was “shocked and saddened” by the criminal charge.
“The diocese was not aware of any computer misuse, any attractions to boys by Father Umberger and much of what has been currently reported,” the diocese stated.
The diocese declined to elaborate or return Tribune phone calls pending the criminal case. [Legal beagles barking even though they want to]
Obviously this thing wont go to trial. I wonder what the DA wants for a sentence.
9 comments:
"A not guilty plea was entered on behalf [...because he won't lie]"
Lying doesn't have much to do with guilty or not guilty pleas once one is wrapped up in our court system. It is, truly, it's own little 'game'.
You say in the quote above 'because he won't lie'....yet you say in the quote below 'if Umberger lied to all of them'......what's up with that? Just curious?
"[Does it really matter if Listecki was there or not? If Umberger lied to all of them, what else could they have done?]"
It DOES matter if Listecki was there or not....because WHAT IF he did NOT lie at that meeting?! Umberger claims, in another article, that he was 'COUNSELED following the incident by Birnbaum and Fr. Hirsch.' Counseled for what? For problems with frequent urination?
However, I suppose in reality, it doesn't matter if Listecki was there or not as far as this COURT case itself is concerned.
But it should matter to us as Catholics served by this Diocese. (WHO was there and WHAT was said/done.)
I think we deserve to know.
Sorry I should have been more clear. Umberger has reportedly already admitted his guilt to investigators. The only reason for pleading not guilty would be to bargain for a better sentence. If Umberger would say "I am not guilty" he would be lying, to get technical.
Right, I agree if Umberger did NOT lie after the Dells incident then it is a very big deal.
I completely agree we have a right to know and once the legalities are out of the way I think it's completely fair that we get an answer.
I am giving the benefit of the doubt to those handling this at the diocesan level. The diocese has procedures in place although it has yet to be said whether they followed them or not.
A link to the criminal complaint from the WXOW website. Look on the left side under the picture.
http://www.wxow.com/Global/story.asp?S=12813814
Thank you Anon!
Just wanted to point out the fact that a 'status conference' isn't a trial, but rather a 'conference' between the plaintiff, defendant and their attorneys to evaluate the status of the case, or whether or not they are each ready to go to trial.
The case could also be settled at that time, if the parties have been discussing plea bargains.
Is the incident report from the Dells public information? It might be helpful to get a look at that.
Thanks Anon on clarification on 'status conference.'
I'll see if I can find the Dells report Anon, not sure if that is public or not.
I think that the diocese either did not have the right procedures in place or chose not to follow them for some reason. Unfortunately, diocese officials did not heed the ancient wisdom that 'an ounce of prevention is better than a ton of cure'.
Immediately after they have received the water park report they should have (1) conducted an in-depth interview of Father Pat on this issue and (2) thoroughly investigated his computer regarding files stored and browsing history (as his PC was church's property that had all the rights to do so). Most likely, his wrongdoings would have been discovered right there.
Anon, the Diocese DID conduct an in-depth investigation. The computer was parish property, not diocesan. The problem was that Umberger was their computer expert. They have nobody else on staff that could have performed any computer investigation. But at the time the allegations didn't have anything to do with his computer. And it should be noted that law enforcement DID investigate the incident and did not press charges. I sound like a broken record, but hindsight is 20/20.
Post a Comment