Dumbledore does Lie-Part II, Snape Turned

[Steve]

No: HPFGUIDX 159917

--- "Mike" <mcrudele78 at ...> wrote:
>
> ---  "hickengruendler" wrote:
> >
> > > Mike previously:
> > >
> > > Why doesn't Dumbledore hit Snape with an "Obliviate"
> > > and erase any memory of the prophesy from Snape?
> > 
> > Hickengruendler:
> > 
> > Because Snape simply disapparated? He might have been
> > surprised by Aberforth .... But after this he could 
> > have been disapparated any day. Or he simply ran away,
> >  before Dumbledore could do anything, and apparated 
> > from  outside the pub. ...
> 
> Mike now:
> 
> Snape disapparating is not what happened, according to
> Dumbledore. Dumbledore told Harry he was "thrown from 
> the building". If you take any other position than the
> one that Dumbledore used for his version of events, you
> have made my point for me, i.e. Dumbledore Lied to Harry.
> **That** is the entire basis of my position. If what 
> *really* appened is in any way different from what 
> Dumbledore *said* happened, ipso facto Dumbledore is 
> lying....
> 

bboyminn:

As I said before, Dumbledore and Trelawney are not giving
100% detailed accounts of the events. They are giving 
context driven summaries. There are many many details in
the gaps in their summaries of these events, so if it 
turns out the Dumbledore merely omitted details because 
they weren't relevant at the time, then I will not 
consider that Dumbledore is lying. If however new details
emerge and directly contradict what either Dumbledore or
Trelawney said, I would certianly consider that a lie.

As I also said before, I don't see a conflict between 
Dumbledore's and Trelawney's version. They are each 
emphasizing certain details and eliminating others. 
Because of different context, the details they include 
and exclude are different. 

So, I need not a different version of events, but 
something the directly and clearly contradicts what has 
alread been said before I will consider that anyone was
lying. 

> Mike:
> As far as Bella; She deflected Dumbledore's spell as she
> was running out the door. Snape was collared by 
> Aberforth, not in any position to defend himself or make
> his escape.  ...

bboyminn:

Sort of a side note on Apparation. Remember when 
Dumbledore and Harry are walking up to Slughorn's near the
beginning of HBP? Harry asks (paraphrased) why they didn't
just Apparate directly to the house. Dumbledore explains
two things; first, it is not polite to Apparate directly 
to someone's house, and certainly is NOT polite to 
Apparate directly into someone's house. Second, Dumbledore
points out that most houses are protected by /wards/ that
prevent Apparation directly into the interior of a house 
or shop.

Consider how pointless locks are in the wizard world. 
What's the point of locking your door when you want 
privacy or security, if everyone you know (and don't know)
can just Apparate directly into your living room? So, 
naturaly, all dwellings and shops, not just Hogwarts, are
protected from Apparation. Though I suspect Hogwarts 
protections are stronger and more encompassing.

So, there is a good chance that Snape could not have 
apparated out of the Inn. Like most polite persons, he
would have had to walk outside the front door.

Finally, as to the idea that Dumbledore Obliviated Snape,
that leaves me uneasy. I have to assume that there are some
ethics to the use of the 'Obliviate' Charm. We really don't 
see people using it willie-nillie. In most cases it is an
excersize of the needs as declared under the Statue of
Secrecy. 

For example, though my memories of the details are
weak, some magical creature ravaged a beach in England. A 
wizard who happened to be on the spot performed the largest 
mass Obliviate on record to clear the minds of the 
sunbathers. So, his choices were to leave it to the muggle
authorities to try and explain how and why hundreds of 
people witnessed a Dragon (or whatever) attack the beach, 
or to simple have a wizard eliminate that bit of memory. 
Thereby allowing the beach goers to return home thinking 
they had nothing more than a pleasant day at the beach.

The only unauthorized and unjustified use of the Obliviate
Charm we have seen was preformed by Lockhart, and I'm
sure everyone would have considered its use in that case
both illegal and unethical.

So, I'm voting against the use of the Obliviate Charm in 
this case.

I also remind people that Dumbledore's account of those
events comes 10+ years later when he has had plenty of 
time to investigate events and get the story straight.

For what it's worth.

Steve/bboymin