[HPforGrownups] Draco and Dumbledore WAS: Re: Dumbledore Does Lie - Sort Of

[Magpie]

No: HPFGUIDX 159819

>> Magpie:
>> I have a hard time believing this is true. By your own logic
>> Dumbledore can't do anything about the attack on Trelawney anyway.
>> Trelawney doesn't know who threw her out of the room, neither does
>> Harry and Draco can deny it.
>
> Pippin:
> He can deny it, but there are two witnesses who can testify to the attack
> itself. If  Draco is still in the RoR, that's certainly up to the WW's 
> usual
> standard of evidence, unlike the situation with the mead or the necklace,
> where AFAWK there's no witness who can show that Draco was ever
> anywhere near the bottle or the package.

Magpie:
Well, we never hear that anyone tries to track down who might or might not 
have been near the mead or the necklace, which is handily explained by the 
fact that Dumbledore and Snape both are said to know who did it and be 
trying to protect him.  Trelawney doesn't know who pushed her out; Harry 
assumes it's Draco based on the fact the whooping sounded more male than 
female--if Draco was in the room later he might have just arrived.

But I see no evidence that Dumbledore cares about any of this.  His own 
descriptions of his motivations have nothing to do with any of it.  He's not 
worried about evidence. He's not interested in the investigation of Draco. 
He's already trying to make sure none of his attempts hurt anyone else.  If 
he were wanting actual evidence that Draco was up to something he could just 
go to the RoR and see what's up.  He wouldn't need to have a reason to take 
Draco himself.

> Magpie:
> I can't imagine he'd be arrested for ejecting Trelawney from a room any
> more than the Trio  would have been arrested for knocking Snape out in
> PoA.
>
> Pippin:
> The only reason they didn't get in trouble is that Snape gave evidence
> that they'd been confunded. Hermione was quite sure they were in for
> it and so was Sirius.
>
> "You shouldn't have done that," said Black, looking at Harry. "You
> should have left him to me..."
> Harry avoided Black's eyes. He wasn't sure, even now, that he'd done
> the right thing.
> "We attacked a teacher...We attacked a teacher...", Hermione whimpered
> staring at the lifeless Snape with frightened eyes. "Oh, we're going to
> be in so much trouble--"

Magpie:
And you thought that Hermione saying "we're going to be in so much trouble" 
for knocking out Snape with a spell meant that they had committed a crime 
that would force Dumbledore to put them in Azkaban had not Snape had said 
they were Confunded?  I thought it was Hermione being her usual hyperactive 
teacher's pet Hermione self--Dumbledore knows they weren't Confunded; does 
he think it was a serious crime?    Usually we're always hearing how the WW 
is so rough-and-tumble that broken bones and skin disfigurement is normal.

Trelawney herself, iirc, doesn't even consider telling Dumbledore what 
happened.  She's indignant and that's about it.  I thought it was only after 
Harry said they had to tell Dumbledore (because he thinks Draco's 
celebrating and not because he's in any way shocked by someone shoving 
Trelawney out of a room) that she sees the chance for some attention.

>
> Magpie:
>> It just seems really silly to think that Dumbledore, who knows
>> perfectly well Draco is behind the near-deaths of Katie and Ron,
>> can't make a move--but would have leapt to take Draco into custody
>> once had he only known that somebody neither Trelawney nor Harry
>> actually saw ejected her from the RoR.
>
> Pippin:
>
> But that's exactly the situation in real life when the police have a
> suspect but not enough evidence to arrest them.

Magpie:
And we're not in real life and Dumbledore is not a character on Law & Order 
trying to get evidence that will stand up in court. He's a guy who knows a 
kid in his school is trying to kill him and is trying to protect the kid. 
If we were in real life we're talking about the difference between knowing 
somebody sent poisoned mead that Ron drank, somebody had Katie try to 
smuggle in a cursed necklace that put her in a coma (and also knowing that 
somebody in the school is supposed to be committing a murder) and somebody 
forcefully ejected Trelawney from the RoR in the dark.  But for some reason 
only the third crime means Dumbledore must bring Malfoy into custody.  Had 
Ron died Dumbledore might have been on the receiving end of the kind of slap 
Chief Brody got from Alex Kitner's mother.

Pippin:
And if there weren't
> such a right in the WW, then Umbridge could have had Harry imprisoned
> on suspicion without even bothering to set up the dementor attack, and
> Snape could have had Harry deprived of Quidditch in CoS for refusing to
> explain why he was in that corridor.

Magpie:
Yes, the WW has rights and not when the plot allows, but you haven't 
convinced me that this right is in any way driving Dumbledore's actions in 
the story, so that had Harry simply told Dumbledore that Trelawney was 
ejected from the room by some unknown person, Dumbledore would have 
immediately arrested Malfoy.

Pippin:
Even Dumbledore isn't always
> right in his beliefs on who is innocent and who is guilty, and he knows
> it, so how could he trust himself with such despotic power, let alone
> be trusted by others?

Magpie:
And I keep having the same problem with this argument as I did at the 
beginning-there is absolutely nothing in the book that suggests that this is 
in any way a question of protecting Malfoy's civil rights (until the moment 
Harry forgets to tell Dumbledore that the person who whooped also shoved 
Trelawney out of the room--then suddenly Dumbledore's got the equivalent of 
DNA evidence and he's committed a crime so serious Dumbledore must bring him 
in).

Throughout the book Dumbledore doesn't want to hear about *any* evidence 
that Harry might have about Malfoy--the main suspect.  He's not, imo, 
motivated by lack of evidence, he is hoping that Malfoy will come around to 
being in the right state of mind to make the right choice freely.  It just 
seems like the text makes it clear this is Dumbledore's gamble--one for 
which he takes actual serious risks.  It seems like these restraints on 
Dumbledore only appeared when people had trouble with the gamble.

Now, I happen to think Dumbledore's plan is ultimately a good one for the 
story and no, I wouldn't want him to just start snatching kids away to get 
them away from Voldemort.  (Alla is arguing the other side of this, that it 
would be better to curtail Draco's freedom than risk others getting hurt.) 
But Dumbledore is not investigating these crimes, not trying to find 
evidence.  He's giving Draco room to try and fail.  If he had evidence that 
Draco was behind the murder attempts (and I suspect that being Dumbledore he 
could get it if he wanted--he could probably set up a trap for him even 
easier) he imo wouldn't use that either.  He knows Draco is trying to kill 
him all year, he knows these attempts lead to other people getting hurt, and 
his plan is not to confront him or get evidence on him but to assign Snape 
to run interference. I thought he said all this himself.  It seems like if 
you take that away from him and define his actions through outside plot 
circumstances you lose the essence of Dumble "Second Chances and Our Choices 
Make Us Who We Are!" Dore.  Alla may not approve of the risks that 
Dumbledore is taking but she seems to have the same idea of Dumbledore's 
motivations.

-m