DD and Draco's murder attempts - No Evidence!

[dumbledore11214]

No: HPFGUIDX 153394

> > Alla:
> > 
> > ...edited....
> > 
> > How MUCH Dumbledore knew about Draco's activities in your 
opinion? 
> > He did not know about the cabinets? True, that seems to be 
supported 
> > by canon, but now you are saying that after attack on Katie 
> > Dumbledore STILL did not know that Draco was involved?

> bboyminn:
> 
> Sorry, but I think you are suffering a case of a reversal of time.
> 
> The first event to happen was the attack on Kate, yet you say,
> '...Dumbledore ***STILL*** did not know that Draco was involved'.

Alla:

Um, YES, I know that the event on Katie was the first attack. :) The 
reason I said still is that the claim was made ( or at least that 
was my understanding) that Dumbledore knew everything after Snape 
reported to him about Spinner End and by everything, I mean UV, 
Draco will try to kill him, etc.

Then the attack on Katie becomes first practical attempt of waht DD 
already knew, NO?

bboyminn:
> There is no 'still' to it, this is the first significant event, and
> they have proof positive that Draco was NOT directly involved. 
Draco
> was not in Hogsmeade that day; he was in detention with McGonagall.
> I'd say that is a pretty good alibi. Further in the second 
significant
> event that resulted in the poisoning of Ron, there is no way to
> connect Draco to it. 

Alla:

Sigh. Let me try again. IF that is so, then Draco should not be 
arrested, IF DD has no evidence linking him to it, etc. I'd say that 
while we had plenty of evidence that DD does not know everything, 
etc, we also see that he knows A LOT ( watched Harry morec losely 
than he knew, etc), so I am not sure that Draco being in Hogsmeade 
would necessarily prevent DD from knowing that he was behind the 
attack, and if he KNEW it, let me say again, NOT suspected, KNEW 
than IMO he was obligated to take action.

Maybe he did NOT know, then my argument is MOOT, there is no need to 
convince me that then DD should not have done anything, I buy it, 
what I do NOT necessarily buy is that DD did not know it in the 
first place.

Bboyminn:
> Yes, at the end, at the top of the tower just before Dumbledore 
died,
> he was able to bring the various fragments of information together 
and
> combine them with was Draco was saying in the moment, but that 
doesn't
> mean he had all that information all that time. 


Alla:

Well, see, we don't know that IMO. You think DD did not know all the 
time, I think ( and as I said I am not hundred percent sure of it) 
and made the conclusion at the end, I think that at the Twoer DD was 
not necessarily in the position to put the pieces together and knew 
it from the beginning, DESPITE Draco having an alibi.

Now, HOW DD knew it, I don't know, but I think the possibility 
exists that he did.

bboyminn:
<SNIP> 
> It is one thing to /think/ or suspect, but quite another to truly 
have
> enough evidence to act on.

Alla:

Absolutely, I agree and I want DD to act ONLY if he had enough 
evidence to act.

Alla,

who starts to get a feeling that she talks  like a parrot and 
considers it a sign to bow out of the thread soon. :)