Who is the adult (Was: Who's to blame for Occlumency?)

[mnaper2001]

No: HPFGUIDX 100697

> > Jo Ann:
> > 
> > Questions: when Harry successfully repels Snape's Legilimency, he 
winds 
> up 
> > breaking into Snape's thoughts.  Would this breach of his 
defenses leave 
> Snape 
> > vulnerable to anyone else who might be trying to get into his 
thoughts at the 
> > time--like Voldemort?  (Is that not why Snape learned Occlumency 
from DD 
> in the 
> > beginning?)  If so, would the risk not grow greater as the 
lessons 
> progressed 

Darrin:
> But if such breakthroughs ARE part and parcel of the defense, then 
Snape 
> never should have been teaching Harry, if Harry learning the right 
way to do it 
> would have risked Snape being found out.

Ally:

I think this a big question and, to me, raises some real questions 
about the REAL reason DD wanted Snape to give these lessons.  He said 
it was too much of a risk to Harry and the Order for him to give the 
lessons himself - that Voldie might realize and try to use Harry as a 
weapon.  Well, doesn't the same risk apply with Snape?  Why on earth 
wouldn't it?  If anything, its hinted that the Dark Mark gives Voldie 
some deeper connection to those who bear it, so Snape teaching the 
lessons would be doubly risky, no?

To me, that means:
b)  DD is lying about why he didn't give the lessons, something I 
always considered a possibility.  The risk of teaching would be there 
if any member of the Order was teaching Harry.  Maybe DD thought this 
would be a way to help Snape and Harry come to some kind of agreement 
or meeting of the minds?  Given the importance he places on everyone 
trusting each other and since Harry and Snape are the two clearest 
examples of Order members who don't - and fairly important members, 
at that - it seems likely that he might have tried to push them 
together and hoped that by seeing into each other's minds that they 
might come to a better understanding of one another . . . which 
seemed to be happening a bit before that whole pensieve fiasco.

OR 

c) It's an inconsistency JKR didn't catch or think about.  I 
personally believe that this is a fairly obvious inconsistency, so I 
doubt this, as well.  But I do believe that no matter how thorough 
JKR is, that there are some inconsistencies she won't have caught by 
the time its all said and done - when there are hundreds of thousands 
of obsessed people scouring every word you write for hidden meanings, 
they're bound to find some things you may have missed. 

Any other possibilities I've missed?