I went back to the file on a Sunday, three weeks after I had last looked at it, and I read it differently this time.
The difference was not in the file. The file was the same as it had always been, the same pages, the same careful documentation, the same damning language of men who were accustomed to saying things without saying them. What was different was the way I was reading it, which was the way you read something when you are no longer looking for the thing you originally went looking for but are instead looking at the document itself, the document as an object, and asking a different question.
The question I had been asking, every time I read this file, was: where is the proof against Harren?
The question I asked on the Sunday was: what is this document telling me that I have not yet heard?
