In defense of DD WAS musings on Dumbledore - Even Longer/Sirius

[juli17 at aol.com]

No: HPFGUIDX 158722

 

Julie:
Again, people who knew Sirius much better
> than  Dumbledore--like McGonagall and Lupin--accepted it. So WHY
> should  Dumbledore intuit something those people didn't? Why should
> he be any  different, and question what seemed to be a closed case?

Alla:

You  are arguing that Dumbledore **ever** questions himself if other 
people have  a courage to contradict him? Well,Mcgonagall did 
question him on leaving  Harry with Dursleys. Did he listen to her? 
But this was the only time when I  remember anybody question DD 
decision to his face and she gave up pretty  fast. Nobody questions 
Albus Dumbledore, ever and as Sherry said both  Minerva and Lupin 
seem to trust Snape only because DD did so and starting to  not trust 
him, like fast. IMO.
 
Julie now:
You have no evidence that DD doesn't question himself, given that we
only see DD through Harry, except for the PS scene. We never get to
see inside DD's mind at all. You also ask if DD listened to  McGonagall
about the Dursleys--If listening is the same as agreeing, then no.  But
if he heard her out, disagreed, and did what he believed was best,  then
yes ;-)
 
Besides, it's not really about McGonagall or Lupin questioning DD.
It's about them questioning Sirius's guilt *to the court*, about  giving
character evidence. And if it is about them bringing their doubts to
DD, well we have no evidence whatsoever that they did so. A brief
mention from McGonagall or Lupin after Sirius reappeared would have
let us know they made *some* effort to support Sirius. But we didn't
get it. 

<snip>



Julie:
> I have a feeling we'll learn more about that in Book  7 ;-) But
> the bottom line is that the Sirius and Snape situations  don't
> appear to be analagous, even with what small amount of  information
> we now have. 

Alla:

Sorry, they do look pretty  similar to me with the amounts of 
information we have. DD was a commander of  two men, doing different 
things during the war, but basically fighting for  the Light, or so 
it seems ;)

He gave evidence to spare one the  Azkaban and he gave the evidence 
that helped condemn another one. 
 
Julie now:
Interesting choice of word, "evidence." DD did give evidence, and  that
EVIDENCE condemned Sirius. DD told the truth *as he knew it.* As
for the evidence that kept Snape out of Azkaban, well, we don't know 
what it is, but clearly it was far less damning than the evidence  against
Sirius. Presumably DD told the truth as he knew it about Snape too.
That's my presumption, though I know others work from the  presumption
that DD is lying and manipulating his way through the books ;-)
 
So, no, the situations are not analogous from the FACTS we know  right
now. The evidence against Sirius condemned him, and we have no idea
what evidence existed for (or against) Snape. So we can't  compare.


> Julie:
> Dumbledore gave evidence. He could have  lied about what he knew
> I suppose, but again, he had no reason to  suspect the evidence was
> anything but genuinely damning. It was the  evidence that condemned
> Sirius, not Dumbledore. 
> 
> BTW,  it was McGonagall who said James told Dumbledore that Sirius
> was his  secret-keeper. I can't think of any reason for McGonagall
> to lie, or for  Dumbledore to lie--either to McGonagall or at the
> trial--so I'm taking  it as fact that Dumbledore knew Sirius was
> the secret-keeper. I suppose  one doesn't have to take it as fact,
> and can assume Dumbledore lied just  to get Sirius put away, but
> then we're straying into nothing more than  ESE!Dumbledore and I
> don't see it at all. Some seem to see it though  ;-)

Alla:

No, I don't think Mcgonagall lied, but I am not sure she  says that 
DD said that and whoever else said that could have been mistaken  or 
make this conclusion as fact, and no Dumbledore is not evil, but 
that  night he did not act the way I would expect the commander who 
cares about  his people to act, genuinely cares about them as human 
beings.


Julie:
Whatever. (And I utilize "whatever" in the California/USA manner of 
signifying frustration and resignation). McGonagall *does* in  fact say
it, and the passage was referenced in an earlier post. I just don't  want
to look it up right now. (Frustration makes me tired and lazy too ;-)  And
I don't even consider her words "hearsay" since I can't imagine JKR  would
have put the passage in if it wasn't to be taken seriously. I am sorry  this
debate has made you think even less of Dumbledore. I can't think how  it
has, but I rest my case.
 
Julie, tired... 









[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]