I did. i was uncomfortable being in the position knowing such information that John may not have known (I didn't know what he knew before I talked with him). But when I got the records, it was then that I realized how long of a record the dad had. Before that, I just wanted to get the gist of what he had done if we had to include the background information.
Once I got the records, then I found myself in a situation that I found to be unsettling. I've been in a lot of odd situations in my career, but this made me uncomfortable. First, I wrestled with the idea of IF I should tell John, etc. But, hey, the driving force in his life is his dad, and he cherishes the memories from those prison visits. If I incldue that, how do I not include what the dad did and how long he was in there?
Then the question became how to do it. I talked all this through with editors, of course. We wanted to handle this with extreme care. We wanted to be sensitive, delicate, respectful. Both in how we wrote it and how I talked about it with john. I did not want to mention specifics with John, and I did not. John and I got into the heavy stuff about 12 minutes into a 45-minute talk. We talkd for a long while after that. The fact is: Even after I told John, it did not change his feelings toward his father. That says something pretty strong about John and his relationship with his father. The three words that jump out to me when thinking about John: humble, polite and mature.
I udnerstand reasonable people can and will disagree on the disclosure issue. But i am comfortable with the decisions we made because of how I handled it.