to tell or not to tell

[Andrew Tarr]

... It can be difficult you can feel bad about revealing information and feel bad about not revealing information.

No-one is obliged to reveal information unless asked for it.  There may be reasons to keep quiet otherwise; it is always possible that although you feel better for letting it out, someone else may feel a lot worse.

[groom]

... It can be difficult you can feel bad about revealing information and feel bad about not revealing information.

No-one is obliged to reveal information unless asked for it.  There may be reasons to keep quiet otherwise; it is always possible that although you feel better for letting it out, someone else may feel a lot worse.

Well put Andrew, my thoughts exactly. I think it is often our need to tell others and not necessarily their need to know.

[Greensleeves]

I agree with those who say 'don't tell'.  I'm not really sure why you would want to, anyway, unless your family was clamouring for results of your research which - if they're anything like most families - is not the case. The question you should ask yourself, to my mind, is why you would want to cause pain and distress to family members, and resurrect a time of great sadness which has long been laid to rest. 

[Wred]

There was a victim in this who is only a generation removed do you really think it necessary to tell  people who loved them of your findings?
Your relations could find out themselves and assess this information at that time. If you tell one  then all will soon know. 
Also more than one child in the family may have been a victim and because this is so close I see nothing but distress in telling your findings.

[sami]

I agree with the 'don't tell' side.

If your parent was the child in question would you like that information to be spread around the family and recorded for posterity?

It caused a world of hurt when it happened, why bring it up again?

sami

[Jool]

I also say don't tell.  It is never nice to hear of children being victims, especially at the hands of their parent.  Not nice to hear even if it was hundreds of years ago, but this it relatively recent involving people in living memory.  The family could be very shocked and disturbed by your findings, best keep it to yourself I say.

[kathb]

Don't tell. Even though his children are not alive, their children are. Imagine how they would feel if this was disclosed. Would they then be looking at their children wondering if they have inherited any of this mans traits. Any slight hiccup in behaviour could bring untold worry to a parent.

[suey]

There was a victim in this who is only a generation removed do you really think it necessary to tell  people who loved them of your findings?
Your relations could find out themselves and assess this information at that time. If you tell one  then all will soon know. 
Also more than one child in the family may have been a victim and because this is so close I see nothing but distress in telling your findings.

I totally agree, this is too close for comfort.   There is an old saying "If in doubt do nowt" and the fact that you are in doubt must surely answer your own question .

[StanleysChesterton]

The middle ground is to find a way to make the information "easily findable" by anybody that goes off looking.

If the offence is not easily linked to the grandfather, nor the sentence, nor the outcome, then create a piece of writing somewhere that gives all of that information by providing the necessary information.

e.g. if the name's common and in the newspapers then your piece should say that the person IN the newspapers IS the person. Let them go off and find/read it for themselves, but knowing where to look (dates, court, paperwork locations).

Aid those who wish to seek .....

"The court papers still exist ... and can be read at ... Archives ... in box ABC/123"

Don't leave people hanging, let them know EXACTLY where to find the details, without giving them to them.