Did DD lie about the Prophecy ?

[staceymateo]

No: HPFGUIDX 117795


delwynmarch wrote:
> ....let's examine what we believe about the circumstances surrounding the first prophecy.
> It was delivered months before it would come true.
> - It was delivered when Trelawney was talking to DD in the middle of a crowded pub.
> - It was delivered to DD.
> Now, let's see about the second prophecy. It was delivered :
> - on the afternoon of the day things would happen
> - when Harry and Trelawney were alone
> - to Harry alone
> 
> We don't know anything about how the Seer gift works. Because of 
that,
> we don't know what kinds of conditions it works under, if any. How
> practical ! But let's assume that it doesn't just work at random, 
and
> that some kinds of conditions must be met. In that case, the major
> differences between the circumstances in which the two prophecies 
were
> given strike me as suspicious.

Stacey:
I don't think that Sybil could "choose" when the prophecies went, but 
they came out when she saw them.  The fact that she could not 
remember what she had said to Harry after the delivery of the 2nd 
prophecy leads me to this conclusion.  If she was waiting to deliver 
it to the person it belonged to, she would have known about it in 
advance, and would have been premediated in her presentation even.  
That scene in PoA makes it look like she has no control over when the 
visions take over and it isn't even her conveying them.  If Ron or 
Hermione or whoever would have been in the room at the time with 
Harry, they would have heard the 2nd prophecy as well.  I do think 
that the timing of the delivery has alot to do with someone involved 
in the overall prophecy itself.  The 2nd prophecy had nothing 
directly to do with Harry, just his actions.  The 1st prophecy had 
nothing to do with DD himself, but I think we all agree that his 
actions play a large part in the outcome of the prophecy itself.
 
> 1. In the second case, the prophecy was given just before it 
happened.
> In the first case, it is supposed to have been given several weeks
> before. But is this true ? Could it be that the prophecy was given 
on
> the very day Harry was born ? After all, it would make sense that DD
> would be interviewing an applicant to a teaching post in the middle 
of
> the holidays.

Stacey:

If the prophecy had been given the day Harry was born, that would 
have given DD a little more information that the prophecy was about 
Harry to begin with and he told Harry that when the prophecy was 
delivered it could have been either Harry or Neville that fit the 
definition of the "one with the power to defeat the dark lord".  
Instead DD told Harry that he wasn't sure that it was about Harry 
until after Halloween Night 1981.

> 
> 2. In the second case, the Prophecy is delivered only to a specific
> recipient. In the first one, it is delivered to (potentially) a 
whole
> room of people. Trelawney could have given her second prophecy 
during
> class, for example. But no, she waited for her *only* opportunity to
> see Harry in private. Inversely, she supposedly delivered her first
> prophecy in circumstances where other people could overhear her. So
> I'm wondering : did DD outright lie when he pretended the prophecy 
was
> given in the Hog's head ? After all, *why* would he have interviewed
> Trelawney there ? She had taken a room at the pub, granted, but I
> would expect that she would have gone up to the castle, to DD's
> office, for her interview. That's the way things happen usually :
> applicants come to the boss's office. *Especially* when the boss is
> not interested in filling the post to start with : DD said he didn't
> intend to continue the Divination class. So why would he go all the
> way to Hogsmeade to meet a potential applicant, instead of having 
her
> come to her office ? Or did he also lie about the reason he was
> meeting her in the first place ? Did he not want some people to know
> that he was meeting Trelawney ? Or maybe he never met her to start
> with, and he was never the one the prophecy was delivered to. 

Stacey:

If I remember correctly, DD stated that he didn't want to continue 
Divination and only consented to talk to Trelawney as she was related 
to Cassandra Trelawney, someone he considered a "true" seer.  The 
Hog's head, to me, seems easy.  He went to "interview" someone who he 
had no intention of hiring at a place that his brother was the 
bartender (JKR's reference of the goat smell and confirmation that 
several fans guessed correctly make the bartender DD's brother).  The 
fact that she had a vision while with him made him decide that she 
was a "true" seer and kept her close, my guess is to protect her as 
she had just predicted the possible/probable defeat of Voldemort.

>Which
> brings me to my third point :
> 
> 3. In the second case, the prophecy was given to the person who 
would
> be instrumental in making it happen : Harry is the only person 
really
> responsible for making the prophecy come true. Without Harry's plea 
to
> spare Peter's life, Sirius and Remus would have killed Peter, and 
the
> prophecy would never have become true. Of course, other factors
> contributed to it, like Remus forgetting to take his potion and
> transforming at a most inappropriate time, or Snape failing to make
> himself useful, but those were failures to do better, not conscious
> decisions to change the course of events. Only Harry did that : only
> Harry forced the course of events to change.

Stacey:

Remember, when the 2nd prophecy was delivered to Harry, he was still 
under the impression that Sirius was the one to bring Voldemort 
back.  Then once Peter was determined to be the "bad guy", Harry's 
sense of justice and fairness and need to not have Sirius return to 
Azkaban made him want to lock Peter up and this would still make the 
prophecy false.  Then of course, things got a little crazy... Harry's 
decision wasn't the only reason the 2nd prophecy came true, but a 
large part of it.

Stacey