Dumbledore's serious errors & what did he do to make up for it/Harry's trust.

[cubfanbudwoman]

No: HPFGUIDX 122889


Finwitch:
> Dumbledore *has* erred several times...
> 
> PS: Dumbledore erred to follow a fake letter, supposedly from the
> Ministry. 


SSSusan:
Are you assuming that DD is omniscient?  If not, how exactly was he 
supposed to know that the letter was fake?


Finwitch:
> CoS: The more dangerous error, however, was hiring Lockhart - this 
> fraud WAS causing danger-- he nearly turned Ron&Harry into not much 
> more than someone KISSED BY DEMENTOR would be near the end, before 
> he removed Harry's bones, set pixies loose etc. 

SSSusan:
While I don't believe DD could have known how Lockhart's incompetence 
would play out -- in particular, how serious the consequences would 
be -- I will agree with you that hiring him was stupid.  Wasn't it 
kind of early in the "The Hogwarts DADA position is jinxed" rumor 
mill for people to have been wary of the job?  NOBODY else was 
available?  


Finwitch:
> PoA: This one reveals several errors shared by Dumbledore & every
> single teacher/adult except for Sirius & the pet-shop worker so far 
> as we can tell: believing Sirius betrayed James, despite of knowing 
> how close they were. 
> Not noticing anything odd about Ron's rat - living so long, lacking 
> a finger... but most importantly, that of not giving Sirius a 
> chance to defend himself (which becomes clearer in the GoF, but is 
> presented here).


SSSusan:
I'm not sure I can go along with these two.  It sounds to me as if 
there might have been some *reason* to have suspected Sirius as the 
spy -- or at least not to have suspected Peter.  I think this is one 
of those bits of backstory about which we are missing key details.  

I also don't think DD should have *known* Sirius was innocent.  And 
he was shuffled off to Azkaban w/o a trial, so that's hardly DD's 
fault.  OTOH, it doesn't make much sense that he didn't, in the 
intervening 12 years, at least attempt to go talk w/ Sirius.  That 
part has me puzzled & disappointed in DD.

As for Scabbers, why should DD or any other teacher notice anything 
about him?  One pet amongst presumably HUNDREDS at Hogwarts?  Why 
WOULD anyone be suspicious of a rat with one toe missing?  

The only adults who might've been surprised at his long life would've 
been Arthur & Molly, but honestly, do many of us question how long a 
pet has lived?  Do we say, "Gee, I wonder why that ol' rat doesn't 
just kick it?"  I would think that mostly we're just grateful that an 
old pet *hasn't* kicked it yet and don't question it.  

In short, I just disagree that there was really anything about 
Scabbers to have drawn much attention, as well as little or no reason 
to have been looking for an alternative explanation to GH since it 
seemed so obvious that Sirius had been to blame.

 
Finwitch:
> OOP: All that 'don't tell Harry anything'- crap, along with keeping
> Harry at distance. Also, having Harry stay at the Dursleys (with
> watchers) all Summer was an error that may have caused the loss of
> Harry (AND Dudley) to Dementors sent by Dolores Umbridge. Plus it
> lessened available resources. Wouldn't it have been more beneficial
> and effective to have Harry stay at the 12 Grimmauld Place earlier? 

SSSusan:
I agree with you about DD's not telling Harry more details about all 
kinds of things--The Order, what they suspected about Voldy, why 
Occlumency was essential in DD's mind, etc.  I think many posters 
here agree that this was a huge mistake, and DD himself acknowledges 
it.  

With the Dursleys vs. Grimmauld Place, though, we're getting 
into "Hindsight is 20/20" territory, I think.  WHY should DD or any 
other adult have expected a ministry official would set Dementors 
onto Harry in Little Whinging?  Again, unless you're arguing for an 
omniscient DD, it seems way too much to expect of him.

Siriusly Snapey Susan, willing to blame DD for some things but not 
quite so much as this.