Timeline for Was Sirius Black's innocence always known to Dumbledore?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
16 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jun 16, 2020 at 9:31 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
Commonmark migration
|
|
| Feb 7, 2020 at 18:07 | comment | added | user21820 | @AllisonC: Janus agrees with my interpretation of what "reasonable doubt" refers to (see his last comment). | |
| Feb 7, 2020 at 18:02 | comment | added | Allison C | The words "reasonable doubt" don't apply to Dumbledore's belief whether or not Sirius was guilty before he was imprisoned, but to factors that could lead him to start believing he was innocent later. | |
| Feb 7, 2020 at 17:43 | comment | added | user21820 | @AllisonC: Read the other answer carefully. It insinuates that Dumbledore creates the impression that he didn't know that Sirius was innocent before talking to Sirius, but that there is "reasonable doubt". In case that is not clear to you, the other answer suggests that there is reason to believe that Dumbledore thought Sirius was innocent but let him be put into Azkaban anyway. So your comment is actually in full agreement with my claim! | |
| Feb 7, 2020 at 15:42 | comment | added | Allison C | It's not incompatible at all. Dumbledore did benefit from Sirius being in prison and unable to claim guardianship over Harry. Dumbledore did believe Sirius to be guilty up until the end. Then Dumbledore changed his mind to believe Sirius innocent, and did what he could to save his life. | |
| Feb 7, 2020 at 9:12 | comment | added | user21820 | @JanusBahsJacquet: Ok, I have edited my answer. | |
| Feb 7, 2020 at 9:11 | history | edited | user21820 | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 392 characters in body
|
| Feb 7, 2020 at 8:32 | comment | added | Janus Bahs Jacquet | That’s fair. “There are some hints that this may not be true” would be a better phrasing. But I don’t think it was clear in your answer at all that that’s what you were objecting to. I’d change the “incompatible with the book” part of your answer too, since it’s not actually incompatible (in my view) – the possible doubt is just overstated. | |
| Feb 7, 2020 at 8:27 | comment | added | user21820 | I already said very clearly that I disagree with the "reasonable doubt" part, because the reasons given for that do not suffice for reasonable doubt. As you said, there is no way to be 100% sure, but I don't think it is fair to say there is reasonable doubt. | |
| Feb 7, 2020 at 8:24 | comment | added | Janus Bahs Jacquet | Your answer only shows exactly what the other answer says: that Dumbledore gave the impression that he didn’t know. He says he gave evidence that Sirius was the Secret-Keeper, which is true – but that doesn’t mean he didn’t know. There is such a thing as perjury and lying, even for Dumbledore. We don’t know for sure what Dumbledore did or didn’t know (James could have told him, for instance). Personally, I’m inclined to believe that he didn’t know, simply by Occam’s Razor, but he could have known and simply kept quiet because it suited his own long game. | |
| Feb 7, 2020 at 8:05 | comment | added | user21820 | Dumbledore may have been suspicious, but he could never know if Sirius didn't tell him. Furthermore, if Dumbledore had performed only a cursory legilimency on Sirius (by eye contact), he might have seen overwhelming guilt, enough for Dumbledore to be convinced (wrongly) that Sirius was in fact a traitor. | |
| Feb 7, 2020 at 7:48 | comment | added | user21820 | @JanusBahsJacquet: The other answer implies that although Dumbledore creates the impression that he didn't know that Sirius was innocent (before Sirius told him), there is "reasonable doubt" because he "benefits from Sirius being in prison". It implies that we should doubt Dumbledore's apparent lack of knowledge of Sirius' innocence before talking to him. My answer explicitly gives evidence that Dumbledore didn't know, since Sirius only changed plan at the very last moment, and never told anyone (not even Dumbledore), so Dumbledore never knew the truth since Sirius admitted to being guilty. | |
| Feb 6, 2020 at 15:27 | comment | added | Janus Bahs Jacquet | What is that incompatible with? Whether or not Dumbledore believed SIrius was innocent at that point, his preparations to secure Harry’s safety include setting him up at the Dursleys’ house where he’d be protected. As Harry’s (wizard-)legal guardian, he would have a strong case for bringing Harry to live with him, which would lose Harry his protection. This was not in Dumbledore’s interests. Having Sirius taken out of the equation by dint of being in Azkaban was a lucky stroke for Dumbledore. | |
| Feb 6, 2020 at 13:59 | comment | added | user21820 | @JanusBahsJacquet: The other answer says "Dumbledore benefits from Sirius being in prison. Sirius is Harry's guardian. Dumbledore sends Hagrid to get Harry to the Dursleys before Sirius confronts Peter. Some would say that was his plan before he even knew Harry's parents were dead. It is essential for his plans that Sirius doesn't get Harry away from the Dursleys, and this stays true even after he knows for sure that Sirius is innocent. So it is really a happy coincidence for Dumbledore that Sirius is locked away without a trial." That is incompatible. | |
| Feb 6, 2020 at 7:53 | comment | added | Janus Bahs Jacquet | I don’t see how the other answer is incompatible with the book. We all know that Dumbledore comes to believe that Sirius is innocent, that’s not up for debate. The question is whether he knew before the events that occur on that day. | |
| Feb 6, 2020 at 7:15 | history | answered | user21820 | CC BY-SA 4.0 |