Secrets (Long) OLD POST REPOST

[montavilla47]

No: HPFGUIDX 186539

> > Carol, who actually agrees with most of Steve's argument but doesn't quite see how it relates to what Snape "knew" in the sense that the unreliable narrator uses that word
> >
> Steve replies:
> 
> I don't think it relates very well to that specific sense of "knew" that you are referring to, at least as I understand what you mean. And although we've been primarily talking about Snape's belief in Sirius betraying the Potters and killing all those muggles, and not about Snape basing his actions in PoA on his POV based on what he "knew" at the time, it was an interesting diversion that did fill in valuable info on Snape's attitude and feelings towards Sirius. (As was my comments about what if Lily had been accused of such a crime being an example of a situation where Snape's attitude and feelings toward a person being a motive sufficient to having him go beyond what what obvious to search for what was truth. It's fine to accept what is commonly believed to be true if it's someone you don't know or strongly dislike.  It's another thing entirely that motivates you if it involves someone you love dearly). 
> 
> Although, on one point, perhaps, the lack of one piece of information Snape had from any pov, narrative or otherwise. may have been significant if Snape had been so inclined to consider it.  The info Snape has in the book from the unreliable narrator is that DD testified that Sirius was the Potter's secret keeper. If all that was reported (in the Daily Prophet perhaps?) was that DD verified that Sirius was at one time secret keeper, an entirely valid question is "Was he the secret keeper for sure at the time of LV's attack on the Potters?".  Perhaps I'm the only one curious about this, having watched a ton of tv shows where those kinds of questions are always asked by defense attorneys like Perry Mason.
> 
> As Wormtail was the secret keeper at that time, and as Wormtail is supposedly dead, another common assumption is that Sirius must have still been the secret keeper. It's not a question that would have been asked by anyone other than Sirius's defense lawyer, which unfortunately wasn't available to him. If such an advocate would asked: "Professor Dumbledore, are you absolutely certain that Sirius Black was still the Potter's secret keeper at the time of their attack?", then DD would have had to say "no".  But this didn't happen, so, yes, as you've mentioned, Snape doesn't really have a logical reason to ask it either, due to the other evidence logically indicating if not actually proving Sirius's guilt.
> 
> Steve, wondering what Sirius's trial would have been like if DD had been his defense lawyer.
>

Montavilla47:

Reading this, I'm struck by that choice of "Right vs. Easy."  The
*right* thing to do would have been to have had a trial for Sirius,
or at least a proper investigation.  Instead, the wizarding world
imprisoned Sirius without allowing him to make any kind of 
plea.

Certainly it was easy for Snape to put the blame for Lily's
death on Sirius than to investigate the evidence for himself.
And, I don't think anybody thinks it was right for Snape to 
threaten Sirius with being kissed by the Dementors without
a chance to plead his case to the authorities.

(Of course, as a Snape defender, I am bound by the rules 
of the secret Snape-favoring cabal to point out that Snape's
threats were empty bluster.  When he was alone with the 
unconscious Sirius, he summoned a streacher and took
the suspected murderer to the castle, where he could be
--and was--interviewed by Dumbledore.)

Getting back to the real point, it was easy for Snape to
accept the general assumption that Sirius was an evil
murderer.  But how much easier was it for Dumbledore 
to believe what  he was told and not even to speak to Sirius 
once?

We Muggle readers are shocked, right along with Harry,
when we learn about this, because imprisonment without
trial is completely against the principles of our legal 
system (I'm speaking of the U.S., here, but it also applies
to Britain).  

The injustice of Sirius's imprisonment strikes Harry so 
strongly that he demands the release of Stan Shunpike
before he'll even consider working with the Rufus 
Scrimgeour.  I think Harry is doing mostly the right 
thing.  (As a Muggle, I'm going "Trial, Harry.  You don't
just *release* suspect Death Eaters, you give them 
a fair trial.")

It's not easy to give every defendant a trial.  It's laborious
and expensive and a lot of the time we don't get it right.
JKR does a great job with Sirius's story showing us how 
important it is to provide a process for every suspect--no
matter how sure we are that he or she is guilty.  

But, as we see when Harry has his trial, the wizarding 
world sense of justice is pretty messed up.  Although both
prosecution and one of  the judges, Fudge tries to further
influence the outcome of the trial by changing the time at
the last minute.  

On the other hand, Dumbledore arrives with a witness who 
bends the truth on the stand (she didn't see the Dementors, 
although she did know they were there).

We don't see the wizards use any kind of forensic evidence.
They don't use priori incantatem on Harry's wand and they
don't extract a memory from him.  They don't even send an
investigator to the Dursleys to ask what happened.

I think we can assume that, had Sirius had a trial, it would
have been quite similar to Harry's.  If Dumbledore believed he
was innocent, he would have been there with coached 
witnesses and the force of his personal charisma to influence
the court--which would ignore most of the evidence 
anyway.