Dumbledore and Scabbers

[kiricat2001]

No: HPFGUIDX 55938

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "maria_kirilenko" 
<maria_kirilenko at y...> wrote:
> Marianne asked:
> 
> >Why would it have mattered whether or not Peter attempted to 
change 
> >back to human form while at the Weasleys?  If he did, obviously 
> >Molly never saw it happen or never came across a strange man 
roaming 
> >around the house. So, Dumbledore may have assumed that Peter 
> >remained in his rat form.  And, after PoA, he's gone off to 
> >Voldemort, and Ron knows ho he is, so chances are Peter's not 
going 
> >to go back to the Weasleys.  
> 
> Because there is a theory (can someone clarify *what*, exactly, it 
> is?) that Peter Pettigrew did not, in fact, transform when nobody 
was 
> around, but transformed in the middle of the night, when everybody 
> was asleep, and either Imperio'd the children, or just had 
meaningful 
> talks with them about good and evil, namely, about the absence of a 
> distiction between them. In brief, messed with their minds. Or 
> something. 

I must have missed this discussion.  Point me in the right direction 
to show me where the evidence exists that Peter Imperio'd one or more 
of the Weasleys.  And, what would be Peter's motivation?  Voldemort 
was almost non-existent for most of those years.  What would make 
Peter risk discovery to use the Imperious Curse on kids?  To what 
end, when he had no Master to serve? 

> But anyway, the fact remains that for 13 years, a *Death Eater*, 
who 
> was responsible for a most atrocious murder, was Percy's and Ron's 
> *pet*. That's something parents should know about, don't you think?
> 
> Does that answer your question?

No, not really.  I probably didn't make myself clear.  Obviously, 
having a DE lounging around the kitchen is not something one would 
want.  My point was that, once Dumbledore knew about Scabbers' real 
identity, Peter was long gone on his way back to Voldemort.  So, is 
there a pressing reason to tell the Weasleys that the rat that used 
to be in their house, but now is gone, was Pettigrew - especially if 
you have no proof on hand to back up that statement?  And, if, as 
Headmaster, all of the Weasley children seem perfectly normal, do you 
make the judgement that perhaps it's not worth throwing everyone into 
an uproar over something you can't prove to them?  

> What interests me more is whether Hermione's parents knew that she 
> was Petrified in CoS.

Or whether the Weasleys ever learned about Ron's broken leg.  

> >Maybe this is evidence of Dumbledore the Manipulator, or maybe 
it's 
> >Dumbledore trying to protect Sirius.  After all, saying Scabbers 
is 
> >Peter Pettigrew inevitably would lead to questions about Sirius, 
and 
> >maybe Dumbledore figured it would be best to keep that quiet until 
> >such time as Peter can be presented alive to the authorities as 
> >proof 
> >of Sirius' innocence. Plus, since everyone is so convinced of 
> >Sirius' 
> >guilt, this whole Peter-as-Animagus story sounds like a fairy 
tale. 
> >Unless you have the man/rat right in front of you as proof.

> Well, I'm inclined to think that Molly and Arthur would have 
believed 
> Dumbledore, had he told them the whole story. Molly Weasley 
certainly 
> seemed OK with Sirius at the end of GoF, although he gave her a 
nasty 
> shock at first.

Although, I have to believe that as soon as Ron got home for the 
summer, Molly grabbed him by the ear and dragged him in front of 
Arthur and said, "Why do you seem to be more than just a nodding 
acquaintance of Sirius Black?"

Marianne