YOUR COMMENTS

1) People keep saying, "He's a nice guy." or "I never had a problem with him." That doesn't mean he is not breaking the law! 2) People are also arguing over the age of the girls in the photos. Does it really matter? A child is anyone 17 or younger. A 43 year old know this and should not have inappropriate photos of them. 3) People are also saying, "Well, it was only 8 photos. I don't care if it was 1 photo. Again, against the law. And what if that one photo was of your daughter? Then would you care how many he had. 4)Yes, I agree "innocent" untill proven quilty. But if they found these photos on his computer, chances are he's going to be found guilty. What do some of you think the police put them there? It stated they found them by him "buying" the photos online while they were investigating others selling and trading them. Please people.. we need to beawre of these people so they don't go further with their urges!
- H, NH

Do you people have nothing else to do but pass judgement? This is only the beginning. It is up to the courts to find out the truth. Let's try and remember, he has a family. How would you like to sit and read all of these comments if they were about your son? Get a life.
If you go to the cinema and see a movie where people are shot and killed, would that make you a murderer?
- mmb, derry

Nothing ever seemed bad about mr b. i knew him, not well, but i still knew him.

my friends and i dont believe it, it seems to weird. my best friend had him as a teacher and said hes too nice to do this.
im still in shock

Another thing,
just becausee timberlane has had a few bad people in the district doesnt mean this type of thing should be expected. i have read some nasty comments about timberlane and just wanted to say that nothing is wrong with that school. It really is a good school and has really smart people in it. just because a few make mistakes dont judge everyone else. so please stop the nasty comments
- Student, Plaistow

It is disheartening to see how many commenters here are misunderstanding and, frankly, missing it.

First, from what is reported, the school had nothing to do with getting into the man's computer. Second the idea of just going into someone use of a computer to catch them surfing porn is not the way it happens and will not - privacy protections abound. Third, from the reporting, it appears the man was obtaining child porn from another party, and this led to his identification and resulting investigation. All of which will likely come out in due course in the criminal process and there's no need - or benefit - to guessing.

The point is this is going on. It does happen - far more than we'd like to know. Maybe this guy is a predator, maybe he's not. But if he willfully obtained child pornography he fosters and abets the trade - a full and integral part of the problem. If there are no consumers, there is no market.

This is all an effort to reduce the number of consumers, therefore the market, therefore the trade. And hopefully make it less likely your kid, or a kid you know, will be sucked into it.

The traders in this product tend toward a fantasy world in which adults, children, and sex are blurred into a "normal." Some cannot confine this to fantasy, and look to make it reality. And when that strikes home, or the neighborhood, then it is too late for another victim or victims.

And finally, here, the lesson and point that respectability is too often the cover behind which a predator hides. In fact, it is the norm, the rule.
- RP, New Boston

Maybe he, or someone in his house was just having a bad day and was engaged in self destructive, risqué behavior. This doesn't make them a danger to anyone but themselves. Like when someone drinks a 6-pack at home after a bad day at work. The internet has made all sorts of stuff EASILY available to those who would have never even thought of something like that before. It communicates both good and bad ideas. It is easy to end up with random bad stuff on your computer if you like poking around the internet. Our DUMB government needs to rethink how the spend out tax dollars. And keep up with how technology changes things. I propose a $100 fine for risqué surfing. Just getting a notice for such a thing sent to your house would probably be more effective in curbing this activity, and cost effective to tax payers than all the ‘hoopla,’ and life destruction created by a few questionable photos or videos as it is now. People who surf the net, and people who lurk in parks looking to abduct and molest children (~150cases/yr. out of 340,000,000 people) are likely to be quite different people. The two should not be lumped together.
- Marc, Mason

Although - if it is indeed true child porn - having this is bad... I am really questioning how his personal computer was checked by the school???

Who had the authority to look at his home computer? and where do individual rights come in.

I'm not sympathizing with him if he had kiddie porn on his computer - but something had to have lead school officials or police to look at his home PC... maybe that is the root of the problem here...
- Marc, Weare

While it would be nice if we were provided some information on the ages of the subjects in the alleged child porn, I do believe when they decide to arrest someone like this the age of the subjects is low enough to the point where it's obvious to any observer that the material in question is illegal.

For those asking how the materials were discovered, the story hints that the suspect was trading the files with others, meaning he likely was offering them for download from his computer. If that's the case, this arrest is more significant than someone who is just viewing the material, not that viewing only is OK either.
- Jose H, Manchester, NH

I would be willing to bet that a significant number of the computers being used to post these comments have porn on them. I'd bet you'd be shocked to know what your neighbors/friends/family/co-workers are doing on their computers and in the privacy of their own homes.

It never ceases to amaze me how little we actually know about the people around us. I have been shocked dozens of times in my life at divorces of couples that seem strong because it turns out the wife or hubby are cheating. The only one that anyone truly knows is themself.

I have read that sexual predators actually have networks and work in teams. So, I understand the need to catch people that are pre-disposed to a sexual attraction in young girls-or boys. It seems a logical first step in identifying those that may take voyeurism to the next level.

Just don't be surprised when it turns out to be a respected teacher or priest or businessman or coach. That's just the world we live in today. It's sad really.
- Bob, Bedford

I absolutely love how eveyon is passing judgement.
I knew Mr. B, he comes into my work all the time.
He was my gym teacher for three years as well.
He's always been super nice, and like K said, you would never have ever guessed in a million years.
But to everyone else he's just another "pervert."
But to the rest of us, we know him, and it just doesn't seem at all right, or possible.
- G, Sandown

That seems like a small number of videos and pictures. It would be useful if the UL put the number in context. Were those files the only porn on the computer? I ask because I work on people's computers and when someone is into porn there is usually A LOT of it on a computer. It is common for some of it to be disturbing even to the person that has it on the computer. Sometimes, just like all web browsing, a link does not lead to where you think it will. If you click, guess what – it is now on your computer. That is how most viruses work.

Another question not addressed in the article is how the police found out about the ten files on his computer. How did they know? Are the police now randomly hacking into people’s computers? If he was actively looking for child porn and the police caught him by him contacting them then that is a different story, of course.
- John A., Manchester, NH

This is subjective. The question I have, is what if these sites claimed to have girls over the age of 18. But infact were not 18 at all, and the pictures may or may not have portrayed these girls as younger. But is portraying something illegal? How is one to know? Is this still considered child pornography? What is questionable these days and what is not? especially when a site claims that they are all 18+, and in fact its borderline, and you can't tell? Could this man be going to prison and have a tarnished record if in fact he is innocent? My suggestion, stay off the internet porn sites that even seem questionable. You never know who is watching you.
- Elizabeth, NH

Maggie, you are incorrect. In this state "Children" means anyone under the age of 16. Anyone 16 and older can consent to having their nude photo taken or to having sex.
- Sarah, Hooksett, NH

I'm not so sure of this. I have not read the statutes lately but I remember the quote 16/18 in the statutes. I don't think 16 YO can consent to anyone /anything more older than 3-4 years than herself but I could be wrong. A re-check of the statutes is necessary.
Someone please quote the statute/RSA
- BA, Derry

Sarah from Hooksett: The age of consent for sex may be 16, but nude pictures need to be 18 or older.
- James, Bedford

I agree with the other kevin, before I judge this man I'm going to need more facts on the story. Most cases involving child pornography including others caught in this state involved being in possession of 100's of photos and it was like that persons life. 8 Video's of girls? how old? 2 digital photos? how old? I am no way saying this man is innocent all i'm saying is Was this man a child pornographer buying and selling pictures or did he click on the wrong russian website? Were these pictures and videos of 8 year olds or was it two russian 15 year olds that looked 20, I do believe there is a difference even if you dont.
- Kevin, Derry

I was in his class the morning he was on administrative leave. He seemed fine. We were playing basketball.
- Paistow Student, Plaistow

The purpose of background checks is twofold. One, to avoid employing a known offender as faculty, staff or engaging as a "key" volunteer (meaning a volunteer engaged on a regular basis, as opposed to a dance or field trip chaperone, for example). Second is to decrease a school or district's liability if a student is assaulted or exploited.

"Child" is defined as under 16, per RSA 649-A.

So, unfortunately, if someone has not been caught before, a background check does not afford protection to kids. The "trade" in child porn has two main components - providers and consumers.
Meaning someone has to make the images, and somebody has to want to pay to obtain them; in short they feed off each other and all exploit the child. The trade does put local children at risk.

There is, therefore, no way to protect children merely by saying a background check was done. The only means is education and warnings to children, and their parents, as well as faculty and staff to be aware and if in doubt, err on the side of caution; which may be easier said than done - because this is also open to abuse (false reports from, for instance anger over a bad grade to disciplinary issues can lead to false accusations).

It is a difficult, difficult issue as far as preventing. The more talk about it, the better.
- RP, New Boston

Mr. Buatti was my coach for three years and i never for an instant suspected he could be capable of something like this. He always went above and beyond for his students in a seemingly selfless way. Now i'm not sure if it was all an act to cover up something sinister. its a shame that everything he taught his students is now horribly tainted if all these alligations turn out to be true, of course.
- k, danville, nh

Yes, there are background checks.

FBI checks and criminal background check.

Why wasn't this caught? Perhaps he was never caught. First time for everything, but yes.. teachers and employees in a school have to be fingerprinted and employment is contingent upon being cleared by the FBI.
- Sharon, Manchester

If he had a dress on when he was caught, the NH House would vote that he could keep his job, his pension, and his porn... after all a man in a dress can use a ladies bathroom!
- Jim, Manchester

"Sexting" victim?
- Len, Manchester

I agree with Liz, I had Mr. B as a teacher too.
He was a great teacher and never a bad guy.

When I heard this I was shocked;
I would have never suspected of him
being that type of person.
- Student, Plaistow

wow, I"m moving to his road in a week and I have a little girl. Maybe I shouldn't.
- Chris, epping

Don't be too quick to judge Buatti. I am an 8th grade student and have had him as my coach for 3 years. "Child Pornography" has such a wide range of definitions, it could mean anything. Not one of us would ever have suspected Mr. B of such a crime. He was a dedicated and caring coach. Favorited by many of us. If you knew the man, never would you have thought of him as a "pervert."

I'm not defending him, i'm just reasoning. None of us are entirely keen on what's happening.
- Liz, Sandown

Does the New Hampshire school system, have background security checks on all municiple, employees working with children? If yes, why wasn't this individual, (teacher, coach)ever noticed before this? Unless he has never been convicted of a sexual crime against children, be it physical or pornographic.
- Dan, Hooksett

What does his pension have to do with anything. If you get arrested do you lose your 401K?
- Mike, Bedford

Maggie, you are incorrect. In this state "Children" means anyone under the age of 16. Anyone 16 and older can consent to having their nude photo taken or to having sex.
- Sarah, Hooksett, NH

Kevin, to answer your question CHILDREN is ANYONE under the age of 18.
- maggie, penacook

Thank you public school system for keeping our children safe. NOT! Will he still get his pention. YOU BET!
- FreddyD, Goffstown

The use of the word "children" is meaningless without further explanation.

Were they toddlers? Pre-teens? Mid-late teens?
- Kevin, Lancaster