D-dore does Lie-Part II, Snape's (lack of) Cover Story

[Mike]

No: HPFGUIDX 160007

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Neri" <nkafkafi at ...> wrote:
> 
> Neri:
> <snip>  If Snape's mission was indeed infiltration into Hogwarts 
> (Trelawney tells us he was also looking for a job at that time, 
> and in Spinner's End Bellatrix knows that Snape took the post "on 
> the Dark Lord's orders") then it just doesn't go well with
> tailing Dumbledore. <snip>

Mike:
But he didn't get the job for almost two years. However, in that 
same section of Spinner's End, Snape tells Bella that he had 16 
years of information on Dumbledore when Voldemort returned (June 
95). Which means he claims at least two years worth of information 
before he got the job at Hogwarts. How do you square the "seeking a 
teaching position" story with the ability to report information on 
Dumbledore, i.e. spying? What is the story for hanging around close 
enough to Dumbledore to report information to his master. You say 
he's not tailing Dumbledore, fine, then what information could he 
possibly be collecting for two years before he gets his teaching 
post? 

And, oh by the way, if Dumbledore didn't know Snape was a DE and 
still in Voldemort's employ before he overheard the prophesy, what 
was the reason to tolerate this eavesdropping spy enough to let him 
get close *after* the "eavesdropping" incident? Wasn't his "cover" 
blown? There is still 9 months to go until Harry is born and 
Snape's "remorse" story can kick in. Which, of course, presumes that 
Voldemort immediately figures out who the prophesy means, 
immediately tells Snape, then doesn't act for more than a year. But, 
according to canon, Voldemort doesn't figure out who his victim will 
be until sometime in 1981. When the Potters get wind that Voldemort 
has targeted them, they make the Fidelius. Presumedly, this means 
that Snape doesn't have his "remorse" story available to him until 
1981. That gives Snape most of two years to be spying on Dumbledore, 
but he isn't yet a teacher, isn't "tailing" Dumbledore (according to 
your interpretation) and has already outed himself as a spy.


> > Mike previously:
> > He didn't seem to have any problem ascertaining that the fab  
> > four that followed Voldemort to the Hog's Head were DEs.
> 
> Neri:
> Well, duh. They come with Voldemort, they stay with him, so they 
> are his henchmen. Doesn't take that much power of observation.

Mike:
"Harry could tell that Voldemort had not expected Dumbledore to know 
this name." (HBP p.444, US) 
Voldemort didn't even expect DD to know the name "Death Eater", much 
less that he had brought some with him. Voldemort still tries to 
call them his "friends", but Dumbledore shoots that down, too. So it 
does seem that Dumbledore has knowledge that surprises Voldemort. 
So, duh, Voldemort doesn't expect it but it's supposed to be  
obvious because ...? How about it's supposed to be obvious because 
*Dumbledore* told us. So, who told Dumbledore? And I don't mean who 
gave him the names, obviously Abe did. I mean how did Dumbledore get 
this knowledge about DEs that surprises Voldemort? And please take 
into consideration the timeframe. Voldemort has just returned to 
Great Britain after a 10+ year self imposed exile. Souds to me like 
Dumbledore is a little more on the ball than you want to acknowledge.

> 
> > Mike previously:
> > He watched Snape for seven years (at least),
> 
> Neri:
> Where's the canon?

Mike:
I meant at school, while DD was the headmaster. If you want to take 
the position that Dumbledore is woefully inadequately informed with 
regards to his students, that is an opinion that doesn't gibe with 
canon. He did seem to know what James liked to do with his 
Invisibility Cloak (steal food from the kitchens), knew that James 
vs. Severus was a similar dynamic to Harry vs. Draco. And although 
admitted to not knowing the Marauders were animagi, seemed to 
understand what was going on between them and Snape. That is where I 
got the impression that Dumbledore probably paid a little more 
attention to Severus Snape than he might have paid to some of his 
more non-discript students. Plus, he had to ensure that Snape kept 
quiet about the werewolf caper. How do you suppose he did that if he 
didn't have some sense of what makes Snape tick?

 
> > Mike previously:
> > we know he had at least one up close and 
> > personal talk with him following the werewolf caper.
> 
> Neri:
> So? He also had at least one personal talk with Terry Boot.

Mike:
Thanks :p The point was that the werewolf caper was hushed up, Snape 
was hushed up. You don't have to believe that Dumbledore was 
omnicient to understand that he had to offer something to Snape to 
keep him quiet. Unless of course you think Dumbledore bullied Snape, 
which goes against everything we've seen of Dumbledore's character 
in canon.

> Neri:
> <snip>
> But did Dumbledore have any reason to watch Snape closely during 
> his school days? Not much that I see, except he was a good 
> student.

Mike:
Werewolf caper? On-going antagonism between him and the Marauders? 
I'm guessing that box of detention files that Harry was given to 
copy over had a fair few transgressions against Snape. Again, 
Dumbledore doesn't need to be omniscient to know there is an out in 
the open battle going on between 4 Gryffindors (well 3-1/2) and one 
of his Slytherins. Not intervening does not mean he is unaware. He 
didn't intervene with Tom Riddle, but he did keep a close eye on 
him, per Tom himself. Dumbledore has shown the ability to spot 
troubled youngsters and once they are called to his attention, I 
don't think it's expecting too much believe that he keeps an eye on 
them from that point forward. Any student that almost gets mauled by 
a werewolf merits extra attention.


> Neri:
> This is according to a comment by Sirius, and yet Sirius himself, 
> who had several good reasons to watch Snape closely during their 
> school days, still didn't know if Snape was a DE when he made this 
> comment. So why would Dumbledore know in 1979?

Mike:
"But as far as I know, Snape was never even accused of being a Death 
Eater - not that that means much. Plenty of them were never caught. 
And Snape's certainly clever and cunning enough to keep himself out 
of trouble." (GoF p.531, US)
Yeah, Sirius wasn't privy to the Wizengamot's secret hearings, so he 
didn't have proof. But it doesn't sound like he had *any* doubt. 
Besides, Bella and Lucius graduated several years (6 and 4?) before 
Snape did. Plenty of time to discern their loyalties and then keep 
an eye on others that they may have influence over.

OK, I get it, you don't like omniscient. But can we at least give 
Dumbledore credit for being observant? Can we at least believe that 
Dumbledore didn't stick his head in the sand? Can we also give him 
credit for above average intelligence?

 
> Neri:
> Ah yes, I wrote something, long ago, about the myth of Dumbledore's
> omniscience.  Here:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/96085
> <snip>

Mike:
Read it. Disagree with some, agree with some. I see that we carry 
the same disbelief (or not?) in the whole plotline of GoF (It's 
still my least favorite book from the perspective of believability). 
For that reason, I blame JKR rather than find fault with Dumbledore. 
That said, I'm trying to analyze backstory with the facts we were 
given as of now. And while I realize there are many red herrings, 
unresolvable plotlines and confusing clues associated with many of 
the characters in the series, it becomes pointless to discuss 
anything if you don't believe JKR has been fair with the major 
themes of the books and the capabilities/characteristics/qualities 
of the major characters. Therefore, I have to take it on faith that 
Dumbledore is very smart, extremely observant, powerfully magical 
and basically well intentioned. You can disagree if you like, but 
for myself, I find it impossible to analyze and then speculate if I 
don't start with the basic premises that I feel JKR has laid out for 
us.

 
> Neri:
> <snip>
> As for Leglimency, Voldemort is an expert Legilimenn himself so 
> he's well aware of the problem, and I doubt he'd send
> Dumbledore a spy who isn't a good Occlumenn. <snip>

Mike:
I defer to Carol's explanation upthread <winks at Carol>. Then I 
add, Dumbledore's talents and abilities rival or exceed Voldemort's 
and Voldemort is well aware of that fact. He has *no one* available 
to send to spy on Dumbledore that would stand a chance of 
outclassing Dumbledore in the Occlumens/Legilimens field, not even 
Snape. My opinion, of course.
 
> > > Neri:
> > > Dumbledore may not know at this point that Snape is a DE. 
> > > Snape has a good cover story for listening at the door: he   
> > > is interested in a post himself and looking for tips (it may   
> > > even be true, in the sense that he needed to get a post in   
> > > order to infiltrate into Hogwarts, and therefore indeed   
> > > attempted to get these tips). <snip>

Mike:
I let this get by the first time, but not now. Interested in a 
teaching post is a good cover story for eavesdropping? You think 
Snape (and therefore Voldemort) have such a low opinion of 
Dumbledore that they could get him to buy this cover story? Where in 
canon did you get the impression that Voldemort or Snape have a low 
enough opinion of Dumbledore to rely on such a feeble story?
"Sorry, sir, I wasn't spying, I was just trying to pick up some 
points on interviewing. Well, no sir, I don't know the young lady. 
You see, I'm looking for a teaching post myself and when I saw you 
go in I assumed you were interviewing someone else for a position at 
Hogwarts."
Yeah, you're right, that seems like a good cover story. <veg>

 
> Neri:
> I'm not sure to which of Carol's arguments you refer, <snip>

Mike:
Um, since we were talking about Snape's "teaching post" cover story 
I was referring to the part of her post that refutes the teaching 
post cover story.

> Neri:
> and no post of yours appear in that thread.

Mike:
Sorry, my original post in this thread.

> Neri:
> Most of Carol's canon in this post isn't very conclusive. We 
> don't really know when the meeting in the HH took place, we 
> don't know how much time after that Trelawney was actually
> hired, we don't know what posts were open then, and we don't know 
> for what Snape was applying. <snip>

Mike:
In the Fall of 1995, Sibyll told Umbridge she had been at Hogwarts 
for 16 years. This puts her hiring in the Fall of 1979. IMO and 
several others the prophesy was delivered at the time of conception 
of the "boy foretold", approx Oct 31, 1979. You don't have to accept 
that date, but to me it fits. The cold, wet night, 16 years from 
Sibyll's employment start and the general belief that the conception 
must have occurred prior to the prophesy. If you don't agree, I 
wonder what works better for you? If you do agree, this puts the 
prophesy and Sibyll's hiring miterm 1979.

Once again, I give you Carol's upthread argument <smiles at Carol>

> Neri:
> He may have been applying for a replacement teacher position, or 
> for the Astronomy post, or for the Ancient Runes post, or for the 
> DADA position because the DADA teacher that year had incurred an 
> early bad luck. <snip>

Mike:
According to Snape at Spinner's End, he was attempting to get the 
DADA position, at least that's his DE cover story that presumedly 
Voldemort ordered him to get that position. Which of course argues 
against any *long* term infiltration plans of Voldemort, unless one 
considers less than a year "long term".

> Neri:
> Or there wasn't any post open but Snape still had some 
> reasonable cover story. Trelawney tells us he was looking for a 
> job at that time and we don't have any special reason to
> doubt this part of her story (except if our theories require
> otherwise, that is
). Since both Snape and Voldy aren't complete
> idiots, I assume they had a reasonable cover story for Snape.

Mike:
Right. You have to assume that Dumbledore is a complete idiot for 
believing and continuing to believe the "teaching post" cover story. 
Because *that* is the cover story, it's canon, you don't get to, or 
have to guess what another cover story might be.

 
> Neri:
> The fact that Sybil isn't Sybil doesn't necessarily imply that her
> prophecy is true. In HBP, Ch. 23 Dumbledore asks Harry 
> rhetorically: "do you think every prophecy in the Hall of Prophecy 
> has been fulfilled?" So Dumbledore is well aware that some 
> prophecies come true and some don't.

Mike:
No, like I said, Dumbledore believes all prophesies are self-
fulfilling. They mean nothing unless the objects of the prophesy 
hears them and acts on them. That's the point of his rhetorical 
question, IMO. And that was what he was so agitated about when he 
was trying to get Harry to understand. Harry could walk away, chose 
not to fulfill his side of the prophesy. But Voldemort believed his 
side of the prophesy, acted on it, and was going to continue to act 
on it. Harry must understand that it doesn't "all come to the same 
thing", that he doesn't have to act because the prophesy says so. 
But Voldemort is going to act. And Harry can allow himself to 
be "dragged" into fulfilling his side of the prophesy, or he can do 
battle with his head held high as proud defender of good over evil 
and to hell with the prophesy. That is Dumbledore's opinion of 
prophesies and that was what he wanted Harry to understand.

 
> Neri:
> Then why did Dumbledore need Trelawney at all? He could just invent
> whatever mumbo jumbo he thought would trick Voldemort, and tell
> anybody that Trelawney or another fraud said it. According to your
> theory only Dumbledore ever heard Trelawney saying the prophecy. 
> Snape never heard any part of it, Trelawney doesn't remember it at 
> all, Pensieve memories can be forged, and Dumbledore does lie. So 
> maybe Trelawney had never made the prophecy at all. Dumbledore 
> invented it, and told everybody that Trelawney said it.

Mike:
Umm, Neri, it's canon. The prophesy was recorded in the Hall of 
Prophesies, Sibyll was at the Hog's Head interviewing for the job, 
Dumbledore did have the memory in his head, we saw him take it out 
put it in the pensieve and play it for us on-stage. Memories can be 
alterred after they are extracted, but the true memory remains, 
that's what Dumbledore explained regarding Slughorn's Horcrux 
memory. 

And how would Dumbledore making all this up refute my Dumbledore 
does Lie theory? I would say that that would strengthen it beyond 
all doubt. And believe me, I thought about this exact scenario. 
However, the canon got in the way. Dumbledore tells no one besides 
Snape the prophesy, and only told him the part he wants released. 
There are witnesses to Snape getting thrown from the building. 
Trelawney is seen in the Hog's Head and does get the job at 
Hogwarts. Trelawney does produce prophesies, we saw here do it in 
PoA out of Dumbledore's view. So, the prophesy did get told by 
Trelawney just like we saw in OotP, Dumbledore didn't have to make 
up anything in that regard. He only had to decide what he was going 
to do about it.

 
> Neri:
> Yes, but this requires that Dumbledore would understand the 
> prophecy *might* be important (because he had no way to be *sure*) 
> within the very short time it probably took Aberforth to throw 
> Snape out. This was in the end of an interview in which Trelawney 
> probably told Dumbledore lots of mumbo jumbo and convinced him 
> she's a total fraud. Dumbledore had to change his opinion about 
> her in a very short time. If he realized she might not be a 
> *total* fraud ten seconds after Snape was out of the building then 
> this was probably too late.
>
> You might not use 20/20 hindsight but you keep calling it "the
> prophecy". You have to remember that Dumbledore didn't know it was
> "the prophecy" at the time. He didn't know there even will be a 
> prophecy.

Mike:
Dumbledore only had to see Sibyll's eyes roll up, hear her speak in 
harsh tones instead of her usual etherial whispers, to realize that 
this great-granddaughter of a "gifted seer" who happens to be 
interviewing for the Divination post, might be uttering a prophesy. 
Sorry, not a big leap in my book for a 130 year old wizened wizard. 
Harry guessed she was doing something out of the ordinary and was 
about to tell Ron and Hermione until the Buckbeak news intervened. 
And this was what, 3 years into Harry's exposure to the wizarding 
world. All I ask is that Dumbledore understand that Sibyll is 
uttering "a" prophesy, not "the prophesy".

As to the rest, I'm through agruing your scenario. I have stated 
mine, it doesn't include Snape overhearing anything. Tell me where 
my scenario falls apart and I'll reconsider it. You haven't done 
that. You've tried to bolster your version (Dumbledore's version to 
Harry), but you haven't told me where mine can't be right.

<snip>
> Neri:
> Heh. I have to warn you here that if you insist on mentioning the 
> MoM battle you risk dragging me into one of my favorite Dumbledore 
> bashing lectures. The number of critical mistakes he made on that 
> day is appalling. Trust me, you don't want me to start going 
> through them again <g>.

Mike:
I merely brought up the MoM to pre-argue that Dumbledore wasn't too 
old to do battle with wizard the caliber of Voldemort. I did't want 
to get into anything substantive about that on this thread. Sorry I 
brought it up.

 
> Neri:
> Do you think no other prophecies, true or false, were made about 
> the Dark Lord during VW1? Do you think none of them ever reached 
> Voldy? <snip>

Mike:
What happens to most prophesies? They get shuttered away in the DoM 
where only the object of the prophesy can retrieve them. Does that 
give you a clue as to how prophesies are treated in the WW? They are 
hidden, treated as Dark Magic, protected by powerful spells. So I 
would say that true prophesies (made by true seers, no judgement 
regarding the validity of the words) are rare and treated in the 
same way as wizards treat dragon sightings by Muggles. The rest of 
the false prophesies (non-seer variety) are ignored by the MoM and 
would also be ignored by Voldemort. He must be intelligent enough to 
know the difference, I'll give him credit for that.

As far as other prophesies reaching Voldemort: It's not in canon. 
That wasn't my choice, it was JKR's. We hear nothing of Voldemort 
hearing another prophesy nor acting on it. It may have happened off-
stage, I won't vouch for it one way or the other. He did get part of 
this prophesy and did act on it. That's the canon we're discussing, 
that's the canon that I'm trying to analyze.

Mike