Spying game/ Vodemort's resurrection/ Animagi

[naamagatus]

No: HPFGUIDX 39794

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., Edblanning at a... wrote:
<snip>

> But what if the first prediction indicated the way in which 
Voldemort would 
> rise again? Dumbledore is very ready to accept the genuine nature 
of Trelawney's second prediction. Is this because it meshed in so 
>well with the first?

He is ready to accept the genuiness of the second prediction because 
it has already come to pass. So, when he refers to a first true 
prediction, he presumably knows it to be true because it has already 
come to pass. (Meaning that it can't be anything to do with how 
Voldemort will rise again, or, for that matter with anything that is 
yet to happen.)

 
> 
> Eloise:
> Oh yes, this is terribly personal for Severus. But that doesn't 
exclude the possibility that it was happening against the background 
of a greater plan.
> After all, even if they *were* planning to send Pettigrew back, 
Dumbledore and Snape both apparently believed at this point that >
>Sirius was guilty.

This I find really hard to understand. Dumbledore and Snape at this 
point know that Pettigrew is alive, is Scabbers and is a Voldemort 
follower. When Lupin found out, he immediately concluded that if 
Pettigrew is alive, then it means that the Secret Keeper had been 
switched. Why wouldn't Dumbledore reache that same conlusion the 
minute he realized that Pettigrew was alive? And if so, why on earth 
should he still suspect Sirius of anything? The only thing that threw 
suspicion on Sirius was that he was known to betray the Potters. But 
if he wasn't the Secret Keeper, then he couldn't betray them, right? 
Which leaves him spotlessly on the Light Side. 

If Dumbledore had known Pettigrew to be alive, he would have 
immediately forced him into human form, marched him into MoM and got 
Sirius released. To to otherwise would have been both very 
dishonorable and horribly cruel.


> 
> Eloise:
> There is obviously a time-restraint here and I think Debbie's 
explanation is 
> eminently reasonable. However....
> 
> >because (and I realize here that there are those who believe 
>>differently, but 
> >I think this is what JKR intended) the Time-Turner can't be used 
to *change* 
> >history; it creates simultaneous histories for the users of the 
Time-Turner. 
>  
> >So Dumbledore shuts everyone up so H&H can get on with it ASAP.
> 
> Eloise:
> You lose me here. I thought that you could (according to the story) 
> and that this was what Hermione meant when she said, 
> 'We're breaking one of the most important wizarding laws! Nobody's 
supposed to change time, nobody! You heard Dumbledore, if we're seen -
> ' (POA, UK paperback, 291-2)

I don't remember this quote specifically, but I think she is 
*warning* Harry against doing anything that changes history (like 
allowing anybody to see them). 

> 
> Now if the Time-Turner merely creates simultaneous histories for 
the user, doesn't this mean that as far as Dumbledore, Hagrid, Fudge 
etc, who haven't used the Tim-Turner, Sirius is indeed worse than 
dead?
> 

No, it doesn't create simultaneous histories. What happened in PoA is 
that Buckbeak had never been executed. Ever. When Dumbledore had gone 
out with the Mcnair, Buckbeak was not there. He was not there because 
Future!Hary and Hermione had taken him. At the moment that Dumbledore 
is outside, Future!Harry and Hermione are standing a few meters from 
him, holding their breath. 
At that point, Dumbledore (I'd think) had no idea but that Buckbeak 
had somehow chewed through the rope. Only later, when confronted with 
the problem of saving Sirius, did it click, and he realized the whole 
Time Turner plan. That is, he had seen in the past the outcome of a 
plan he would hatch in the future. 


Naama