Pensieves objectivity AND: Dumbledore's integrity

[slgazit]

No: HPFGUIDX 79618

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "kiricat2001" <Zarleycat at a...> 
wrote:
> --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "mochajava13" 
> <mochajava13 at y...> wrote:
>  But, Dumbledore could have had Remus or Moody or 
> McGonagall be the one to talk to Harry alone to explain all of 
this, 
> and also explain why Snape has to be the one to teach Harry.

I think Dumbledore wanted Snape to teach Harry for two reasons:

1. Snape was the best for the job and also right there at Hogwarts
   (as Dumbledore felt he himself could not do it).

2. He was hoping that by more one-on-one contact, and by letting
   Snape see what life has really been like for Harry, that the
   relationship between Harry and Snape will improve. Since
   both Harry and Snape are central to his battle plans, it
   makes sense to try to improve their relationship.
   Once the decision to have Snape teach was reached and Snape
   accepted, it would be undermining his authority to have
   another person act as intermediary.

> Plus, where does it say that Dumbledore had misgivings about using 
12 
> Grimmauld PLace?

Dumbledore had misgivings about the trustworthiness of Kreacher.
He says so himself in his post-mortem discussion with Harry.

> Had Dumbledore had another place to use as 
> Headquarters and insisted that Sirius stay locked up in it, I think 
> Sirius would have handled it better than being locked up in the 
very 
> house that represented everything he hated about his childhood.

I think that Sirius had to be there or they could not have used
the house at all. What would have prevented Kreacher from betraying
the order sooner had Sirius not been there. I doubt they can still
safely use the house now as Kreacher is no longer bound to obey
them, since his master is dead.

> If keeping Sirius locked up in that house was Dumbledore's idea of 
a 
> great way for Sirius to be able to live, really live, then 
> Dumbledore's not being either Macchiavellian or fatherly - he's 
being 
> sadistic.

I don't think he thought it a "great way". His reasoning was the
same one that he used when he left
Harry with the Dursleys knowing what kind of life he is sentencing
him to. In both cases he considered the "home" he was leaving
them to be the only thing that would keep them alive. I believe
he was right.

> to give Sirius a chance to live was to find 
> Pettigrew and bring him to justice.  We heard not a peep about that 
> in OoP because everyone was so busy with the prophecy stuff.

Dumbledore knew that once he can convince the wizarding world that
Harry's account of the events is correct, getting Sirius exonerated
would be a cinch. Sirius had only to stay hidden until then,
so it was only a temporary setting.
Sadly if he had not gone to the MoM to save Harry, he would have
been a free man thereafter.

It seems to me that Dumbledore's greatest error that while he
had the best interests of the people he was leading in his mind,
he ignored the impact of the events on them emotionally. Harry
was extremely traumatised by the events in the graveyard and
then put under pressures from all sides (slandering, MoM campaign
against him, Umbridge, Dumbledore ignoring him, Voldemort's
manipulations, etc.). Sirius was already unbalanced after 12 years
in Azkaban and then put effectively in jail again. Snape was still
not over the conflict with Harry's father and with Sirius.
Dumbledore was too focused on the big picture to notice all that or
account for it in his plans and so invited disaster.

Salit