Dumbledore Does Lie

[Mike]

No: HPFGUIDX 159319

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Steve" <bboyminn at ...> wrote:
> 
> bboyminn:
> 
> One small thing that you seem to be overlooking, and that
> is that what Dumbledore is saying now today is not based
> on his instantaneous realization in the moment his 
> interview of Trelawney was interupted. He has had well 
> over a decade of time to research the matter, to gather
> information, and to get his story straight. 
> <snip>

Mike:
Not a small thing, a big thing. You are of course right, Dumbledore 
had a decade to learn what Snape told Voldemort. Thereby, he can 
state with ultimate confidence how much Voldemort heard.


> bboyminn:
> I leave an element of doubt because we don't really know
> for a fact that Snape can be trusted, but Dumbledore 
> thinks he can, and so he takes his statement of what he
> heard as fact.

Mike:
For the purposes of my theory, Snape was already in Dumbledore's 
confidences at the time of the prophesy. So, learning what parts 
Voldemort got from an ESE!Snape would completely nullify my theory 
and therefore render the question moot. I shall not dwell on this :)


> > Mike:
> > Another point to answer. (Thank you montims) Instead 
> > of reaching to try to figure out how to reconcile the
> > two versions of events, we should be asking why Snape 
> > would be eavesdropping on a teachers job 
> > interview. ...edited...
> 
> bboyminn:
> 
> But that is assuming Snape knew who Dumbledore was 
> meeting and why. Snape can't possibly know if something 
> worth hearing would occur unless he heard it and made a 
> determination.
> 
> Dumbledore was having a private meeting, and private 
> meeting are usually private because something 'private' 
> is being discussed. <snip>

Mike:
Ah, a small but significant difference. Dumbledore's interview with 
Trelawney would be private but not secret. Most likely they would 
have met in the bar first, before going to a private room, propriety 
must be observed you know :)

In any case, neither Dumbledore nor Trelawney would have any reason 
to keep their interview secreted from the general populace, and I 
don't find Sibyll particularly discrete, do you? Given Sibyll's 
propensity for establishing her pedigree, Snape most likely would 
have learned who Dumbledore was meeting with prior to the actual 
interview (if he was at all competent). Even being thorough and 
still eavesdropping on the meeting on principle, Snape would learn 
from the outset that this was a job interview. Staying there to 
continue to eavesdrop on this interview would surely not be worth 
the risk, considering his exposed position in the hallway.

I realize that the is conjecture not canon, but it seems reasonable 
to me. Therefore, I'll stick with it until someone shows me it 
doesn't make sense to read it this way. BTW, I always envisioned 
Snape's eavesdropping to be occurring through the partially open 
door of Sibyll's room. IOW, I supposed that Dumbledore would not 
want to be seen going to a strange woman's room, over a bar, and 
close the door. If you know what I mean ;-) Now, of course, I don't 
think Snape was eavesdropping at all :)

 
> bboyminn:
> 
> Here's the thing, I don't think the two version are 
> inconsistent. Each is in a conversation, each is relating
> detail that the individually feels are relevant to the 
> conversation at hand. Neither is intent on giving a 
> precise detailed minute-by-minute historical account. <snip>

Mike:
It's not the details, it's that Dumbledore said the eavesdropper was 
discovered "only a short way into the prophesy and thrown from the 
building". This does not sound like the eavesdropper was allowed to 
remain *inside the building* long enough for Sibyll to finish the 
prophesy, much less to appear in her room *after* the prophesy is 
finished. 

JKR has Dumbledore choose his words very carefully and this is a 
critical point of the entire storyline. Why does Dumbledore not 
say, "The eavesdropper was discovered a short way into the prophesy 
and prevented from hearing the rest."? Or how about, " ...into the 
prophesy but removed from earshot so he couldn't hear any more."?
Since Sibyll saw Snape after the prophesy was over, either of my two 
alternate verbages more accurately reflect what Dumbledore proposed 
happened. And whether Snape was then "thrown from the building" 
becomes immaterial. 

My point is that Dumbledore has had 16+ years to figure out how he 
was going to tell the story of how this went down. Would he not tell 
Harry something that more accurately reflected the actual sequence 
of events if Snape was indeed still acting on Voldemort's orders at 
the time? He can still leave Snape's identity out of it. When JKR 
introduces this anomaly of versions, I read it as a clue.


> bboyminn:
> Further, there is very likely a third set of details that
> neither of them are relating because they are not 
> relevant to the conversation at hand. I have no problem
> piecing together the two version, and until something in
> that third set of unknown details appears to contradict 
> it, I take both to be true in the context in which they
> were spoken.

Mike:
Curious. I wonder what framing you would put on this third set of 
details? Could you be referring to Aberforth's version? Else, I'm 
not following what you mean by a third set.