What's in a pronoun?

[Mark Ulrik]

Propinquity, it's all propinquity. Or as we say when we visit Denmark, "nærhed." No, I think we'll keep saying propinquity even when we visit Denmark.

You plan on returning?

[Steve M. Galbraith]

Not to sidetrack this too much (but I guess I am anyway), what's interesting for me in the article is how reticent Lane appeared to be in revealing what Garrison supposedly told him. That's not how Lane operated.

My guess is that Garrison's "revelations" put Lane in a dilemma. Garrison believed that Oswald was one of the conspirators; viz., had attended the meeting where the assassination was planned, brought the rifle that was used in the shooting. That is, Oswald was guilty. But it was Lane's view, from my reading, that Oswald was an American Dreyfus. He was innocent from beginning to end (the middle too). He wasn't involved in any way in the assassination. Garrison's "discoveries" then presented him with a major problem. If he reveals them then his work defending Oswald is called into question. If he refutes Garrison on Oswald, says he's wrong, then Garrison cuts him off from any inside information. Best option: show a little conspiracy leg but not too much.

Thus Lane's shyness - not something he was known for - in revealing in any details on what Garrison told him particularly anything involving Oswald.

Just to add here: Tom Bethell was one of Garrison's investigators. He later left in disagreement over what Garrison was doing. In a conversation with Lane, Bethell recounts the following exchange:

"At one point I told Lane that there was a certain irony in his supporting Garrison, because he had supposedly been retained by Oswald's mother to defend (posthumously) her son. Garrison's case against Shaw, I reminded Lane, is contingent upon Oswald's guilt since Shaw is accused of conspiring with Oswald. Lane's reply was: "I have never maintained that Oswald is innocent. Nowhere in ‘Rush to Judgement," do I say that Oswald is innocent."

I'll leave it to others to conclude whether Lane was being disingenuous or not (me: he was).

[Mark Ulrik]

Not to sidetrack this too much (but I guess I am anyway), what's interesting for me in the article is how reticent Lane appeared to be in revealing what Garrison supposedly told him. That's not how Lane operated.

My guess is that Garrison's "revelations" put Lane in a dilemma. Garrison believed that Oswald was one of the conspirators; viz., had attended the meeting where the assassination was planned, brought the rifle that was used in the shooting. That is, Oswald was guilty. But it was Lane's view, from my reading, that Oswald was an American Dreyfus. He was innocent from beginning to end (the middle too). He wasn't involved in any way in the assassination. Garrison's "discoveries" then presented him with a major problem. If he reveals them then his work defending Oswald is called into question. If he refutes Garrison on Oswald, says he's wrong, then Garrison cuts him off from any inside information. Best option: show a little conspiracy leg but not too much.

Thus Lane's shyness - not something he was known for - in revealing in any details on what Garrison told him particularly anything involving Oswald.

Just to add here: Tom Bethell was one of Garrison's investigators. He later left in disagreement over what Garrison was doing. In a conversation with Lane, Bethell recounts the following exchange:

"At one point I told Lane that there was a certain irony in his supporting Garrison, because he had supposedly been retained by Oswald's mother to defend (posthumously) her son. Garrison's case against Shaw, I reminded Lane, is contingent upon Oswald's guilt since Shaw is accused of conspiring with Oswald. Lane's reply was: "I have never maintained that Oswald is innocent. Nowhere in ‘Rush to Judgement," do I say that Oswald is innocent."

I'll leave it to others to conclude whether Lane was being disingenuous or not (me: he was).

Your thoughtful comments are always appreciated, Steve. I guess contributing to Lane's uncharacteristic show of restraint could also be his wanting to stay on Garrison's good side and not interfere with an ongoing investigation.