DD and the rat (was:Re: Minerva McGonagall-/Dumbledore)

[justcarol67]

No: HPFGUIDX 116512


> > Pippin asked:
> > > 
> > > Does Peter have the brains or the power to have been 
> > > Voldemort's spy for a whole year?
> > 
> > Carol responds:
> > What he did in the duel with Sirius apparently took brains, 
> didn't it? Blowing off his finger, turning into a rat, and making 
> himself look like a murder victim, whether or not he actually blew 
> up the street and killed the Muggles, which I think he did? (He 
> probably made sure that Sirius had his wand out, though, so it 
> looked like he did it.) 
> 
[But as for spying, all he had to do is report what happened in the
Order meetings and reveal names of Order members so the DEs could kill
them off one or two at a time. It *must* have been the spy's
information that was used to locate the people who were murdered
(Marlene Mackinnon, Benjy Fenwick, the Prewitts, etc.), and I see
nothing in canon to indicate that Peter could not have given that
information directly to LV and quietly returned to his supposed
friends.]
> > But as for spying, all he had to do is report what happened in 
> the Order meetings and reveal names of Order members so the 
> DEs could kill them off one or two at a time. <snip>
> 
> >No lying or cleverness involved; just silence and a pretense
>  of horror with each new victim. <
> 
> Pippin:
> Maybe I'm confused...what do you see as the  difference between 
> 'lying and cleverness' and 'pretense'? 

Carol responds:
Part of the problem is that you snipped my post so the train of
thought is obscured (I put the snipped part back in), but I can see
that my argument wasn't quite clear. I do actually think that Peter is
more clever than many of us give him credit for, but my point was that
he doesn't *have* to be clever to be a spy.

As for the difference between "lying or cleverness" and "silence and a
pretence of horror," I'm saying that no clever, complicated lies were
required. If he was the spy (and I think he was), he only had to keep
his mouth shut (common sense for a spy, in any case) and pretend
through facial expressions and shocked platitudes (Oh, my God! How
awful!") to be horrified by the killings of victims whose name he
himself had given to Voldemort.

Whatever you call it, Peter 
> had to keep it up for a whole year, during part of which Albus 
> Dumbledore, who usually knows when people are lying to him, 
> was actively hunting among those close to the Potters for the 
> spy.  We know Peter was close to them, since he sat between 
> them in the picture. Surely DD would detect that Peter's 
> expressions of horror were feigned? 

Carol again:
I don't think Dumbledore uses Legilimency except in one-on-one
conversations where he's looking someone directly in the eye. If he
suspected Sirius, he wouldn't be paying much attention to Peter,
anyway. And if Peter told no complicated lies--in fact, spent most of
his time listening for things he could report to Voldemort--there
would be no way to catch him in a lie, Legilimency or no.

Pippin wrote: 
> If, OTOH, Peter was cool and clever enough to fool DD, why fall 
> apart in the Shack? And if that was OscarWinner!Peter, then why 
> would he think shifty eyes and nervous panting would add to his 
> portrayal of someone who thought the accusations against him 
> were ludicrous?

Carol responds:
First, I've already explained how I think he fooled DD--his usual
tactic of remaining inconspicuous. The acting involved was minimal. I
*don't* think he was acting in the Shrieking Shack, unless you call
blatant, self-protective lies acting. He *was* panicking, and his life
*was* in danger. He behaved as any self-serving traitor would, not
only lying but begging for mercy. There was no need for any such
tactics before he was suspected.


> Carol:
> >This is a man who, after living as a rat for twelve years, can AK 
> an innocent boy without a second thought.<
> 
> Pippin:
> I don't object to Faith-based theories on principle, but they, too, 
> should simplify rather than complicate the canon. Peter killed 
> Cedric? You'll have to explain to me how it was simple for Peter 
> to put aside the bundle in his arms and get his wand out before 
> Cedric could stop him.
> 

Carol responds:
Now I'm confused. I've never mentioned faith or faith-based theories.
Are you implying a religious basis for a simple statement? Or do you
mean that Peter killing Cedric is an assumption? To me, the assumption
is that someone else was there. We only know of three people, if LV
counts as a person, being present in that graveyard when Cedric was
killed: Harry, who didn't kill Cedric; Voldemort, who couldn't have
done it; and Wormtail, who was ordered to do it and did. Unless we
bring in a complicated conspiracy theory for which I see no canon
evidence.

I do think JKR is a bit vague in her details here since the characters
do seem to have their hands full, and admittedly there's an awkward
moment where Wormtail would need to shift the bundle to his left hand
and point the wand (presumably already in his hand) with his right.
But note that the same thing happens with Harry later. He has his wand
in one hand, is holding onto Cedric with the other, yet somehow grabs
the portkey to take them both home. Please don't think I'm rude, but
if anyone needs to do some explaining, it's JKR.

> Cedric had his wand out already.  He'd just seen Harry collapse 
> at his side. We are reminded in OOP that Cedric was a 
> world-class champion adult wizard who knew quite as much 
> about duelling as Harry, so this is not one of those minor 
> inconsistencies that JKR lets by. This is something we are to 
> take note of, a clue slipped into an innocent chapter.   Somehow 
> Cedric let Wormtail get the drop on him without so much as an 
> "Expelliarmus".  Wormtail, who was always hopeless at duelling. 
> Something's not right.

Carol responds:
Cedric is an innocent boy who doesn't know where he is and doesn't
know he's in danger, except for a vague uneasy feeling he presumably
shares with Harry. Wormtail is not duelling with him; he's simply
obeying an order to "Kill the spare," a cruel, cold action that speaks
volumes for Wormtail's capacity for evil but requires no skill in
duelling that I can see. (In any case, MCGonagall may be wrong in her
impression of Peter, who may well have exaggerated his own ineptitude
at duelling--or have been "hopeless" in comparison with James, as no
doubt most students were.)

I agree that the situation is confusing and that we have an
inconsistent picture of Peter, but I don't see a need for an invisible
fourth person (not counting Cedric) to be present. 

Carol