Dilemma

[ex-khobar Andy]

As many of you know, I spent my formative years at an English boarding school - not because my family was rich but because my father's company wanted him overseas and they added school fees for my brothers and me, to sweeten the pot. No complaints about the education I got; and the place certainly was not Eton (as in Boris Johnson, David Cameron, Princes Harry and William et al) and we were spared much of the BS that goes on in that sort of place.

One of my good friends from those days was a guy who became one of Britain's greatest con artists. He basically stole £35 million (maybe $50 million) from his clients. (Not Bernie Madoff's league, I know.). He died a little while ago, in New York. My school mag runs obituaries of old boys (we were all boys in those days) and I have half a mind to write a paragraph or two about the Roger I knew almost sixty years ago before he began his life of crime.

I'm not sure what my motives are. Certainly I am not attempting to 'correct the record' in any sense; everyone knows what he did - but of course to most people who read the mag he is one-dimensional. He was not an outstanding scholar or athlete but he was a solid guy: not a bully or someone who perpetually challenged authority but he was easy to get on with. He was a natty dresser. We wore grey suits and of course a schoolful of growing boys - who were not, for the most part, from the ranks of the wealthy - the suits lasted longer than the fit so most of us most of the time were in suits we had yet to grow into or from which we had recently grown out. Roger was always immaculately turned out and photos of him from his court appearances show that that did not change.

When I knew him, he was a good guy.

As I say, I'm in two minds about this. Any thoughts?

Edited to correct a typo: I had 'bothers' for 'brothers.' Actually it's not all that inapt.

[Crackpot]

It is a bit strange having a different recollection of someone than just about everyone else. My paternal Grandfather was pretty much like that for me. He was an abusive Father and grandfather to my cousin but he was a different person to my brother and especially to me. The memories I had of the kind patient and caring man did and do not jive with the stern man affectionately referred to as “the Judge” by friends and family.

It’s an odd sensation to have to merge a composite impression of a person when your experience differs so much from what the majority saw.

[Big RR]

I think it makes sense to write about and remember the person you knew; people are complex beings and not one dimensional. You could preface it by saying something like "While his activities after leaving the school are fairy well known, I think we should take time and recall the young man we all knew when he lived among us...continuing with your remembrance. It's fitting to address the remembrances of the person you knew, and a nice touch that you feel called to do so. I would avoid saying anything about his latter activities--you're not excusing them, merely recalling better days.

When my step grandfather died, I was asked to say something at the funeral. The man was fairly odious, a drunkard who couldn't keep his hands to himself among the young girls in the family, but he was my grandmother's husband. I focused on his war service (he was a ship captain in the merchant marine) and the commendations he received for meritorious service, as well as his devotion (of sorts) to my grandmother; I stayed far away from the rest. It wasn't a whitewash, just a fitting remembrance to a man whose passing deserved some notice. It made my grandmother happy and I never regretted it.

[Joe Guy]

.....When I knew him, he was a good guy.

As I say, I'm in two minds about this. Any thoughts?

I wouldn't hesitate to write about my impression of and relationship I had with the person I knew during the period I knew him. There's nothing wrong with that.

[Econoline]

I have no opinion either way regarding whether you should write it, but I feel that if you do, you should (at least briefly) include the why of your decision to write it.

[MajGenl.Meade]

I believe you should follow your heart on this. Do it.

You might want to start where Mark Anthony did

The evil that men do lives after them; the good is oft interrèd with their bones.
So let it be with Caesar. The noble Brutus hath told you Caesar was ambitious.
If it were so, it was a grievous fault, and grievously hath Caesar answered it.

[Long Run]

Based on the bit we know, I would not speak up publicly about him. One factor is how this might negatively impact your work career or any other important part of your life. It does not sound like he ever sought to atone for his crimes, or otherwise was truly remorseful. There are any number of people/families that were seriously hurt by him. Last thing they need to hear is what a good guy he was before he decided to ruin their lives.

Everyone has pluses and minuses, but this far exceeds "he could be a jerk sometimes" type of situation. His negatives appear to substantially outweigh his positives. My two cents.