Obviously guilty was Re: JKR/Oprah interview

[dumbledore11214]

No: HPFGUIDX 189660


> > Alla:
> > 
> > Where did you get that he was investigating for a year after Peter's "death" whether Sirius was a murderer? I thought he reached his conclusion the very same day (or few hours later)after he heard of Godric Hollow.
> 
> Pippin:
> He was investigating for a year *before* Peter's "death" --  Sirius knew the spy had been active for that long. Order members were being picked off one by one, remember? As far as everyone knew, Peter was  the last in a long string of Order members murdered by the spy. Dumbledore's conviction that Sirius was a murderer didn't begin with the attack on the Potters or Peter's death -- he'd suspected it for a long time already.

Alla:

Of course I do remember that, but that to me really is not the same. As far as I remember nobody specifically suspected a spy of killing people, only about passing on information. Also "order members being picked up one by one" was from Lupin's speech,no? The one where he says that it happened because Death eaters were so much more by numbers, sorry too tired to go look up the quote, but I believe my parahprase is pretty close.

So what I am trying to say is this:

a) I do not believe that Dumbledore suspected Sirius for a year, I am thinking his suspicions wondered between all Order members and b) while passing information is definitely an act of the traitor I do not remember the canon saying that spy killed all these people, so I am arguing that this is the first act of murder where spy was supposedly directly involved in, thus I think Dumbledore should have started much more vigorous investigation and a new.


> > Alla:
> > 
> > Oh you are right of course - he will harm and hurt anything and anybody he leads, I just wanted him away from those he in my opinion harmed most visibly _ Potters family and their son, Sirius, all those men who agreed to fight under him.
> 
> Pippin:
> Scrimgeour and Fudge  showed no inclination to leave either Harry  or Hogwarts alone, so I can't think why Dumbledore wouldn't involve himself. He'd still think Sirius was guilty, he'd still see Harry as a way to locate the horcrux(es) and he'd still see the Harry!crux as something that had to be destroyed eventually, for Harry's own good as well as the rest of the WW.

Alla:

He may, or he may not, after all do we know for sure that Fudge even knew where Harry was spending his eleven years before it was revealed by Dumbledore?

Before you say it yes, I know that Fudge knew about Marge's predicament in PoA, I am saying that before Harry came to Hogwarts he may not even known that he was staying with Dursleys till Dumbledore deemed it fit to inform him. So maybe if Dumbledore was out of the loop, maybe... But if he was not out of the loop, sure I will agree that he will do his best to involve himself, as I said I am just coming up with possibilities of alternative future.


Pippin:
> He probably wouldn't have placed Harry at the Dursleys though, because he'd be trusting the power of the Ministry more than the power of love. He'd want, let's see, a powerful magical family with anti-Dark Arts pro-Ministry cred.  So Harry dies before his second birthday, murdered by his foster brother Barty Jr. Oops.

Alla:

Sorry, does not work this way in my scenario, in my scenario Dumbledore cannot touch Harry because somebody already took him away far from the bastard's prying eyes.


> Pippin:
> No, I am saying that Dumbledore wasn't as different from Harry as you think. He too was doing his fallible best to bring some love into the world. But he wanted to shine while doing it. He wasn't, IMO, out to humiliate, torture or kill for the fun of it and he wouldn't have done that at the Ministry. But the essential lie at the heart of the Ministry's existence needs enforcers to keep it going. If Dumbledore had succeeded in getting rid of Umbridge and the dementors, their replacements would have been just as bad. He was willing to look the other way at what Grindelwald was planning, and he knew it would have been the same at the Ministry, IMO.

Alla:

Sorry, but Dumbledore claims that he is very very different from Harry. Yes, I know I have to be consistent and either believe him or not, but supposedly in the King's Cross he is dead, so maybe there is bigger chance that he is telling the truth lol. Dumbledore may have wanted to bring love in the world in a twisted way that he understands it (no friend, no significant other, no confidant, no trusted companion, NO family, what do you think he knows about the love by the way?), but he also wanted as you put it to "shine" while doing it, or as I put it to be worshipped and unquestionably followed, while he manipulated and twisted people's lives. To me it makes him very different from Harry.


JMO,

Alla