“And there’s also the secondary possibility that she was burned alive, but that it wasn’t Dumbledore who arranged it to happen, he just took credit for it afterwards to serve his purpose of protecting the families of the Order of the Phoenix.”
Exactly. Similar mechanism as in “Breaking bad” TV series. The legend, that Jesse Pinkman crushed the non-payer Spooge with the ATM machine improved the payment discipline of other customers. Even though Jesse, in fact, did not do that and would never be able of doing it.
I thing it is more likely, that Dumbledore took credit for the murder rather than actually committing it. A premeditated, exemplary murder of innocent women seems too unprobable and OOC for a “light” character. The only think that makes me uncertain about Dumbledore innocence is this part of chapter 80:
When Lucius Malfoy spoke again his voice seemed to tremble ever so slightly, as though the stern control on it was failing. “Blood calls for repayment, the blood of my family. Not for any price will I sell the blood debt owed my son. You would not understand that, who never had love or child of your own. Still, there is more than one debt owed to House Malfoy, and I think that my son, if he stood among us, would rather be repaid for his mother’s blood than for his own. Confess your own crime to the Wizengamot, as you confessed it to me, and I shall—”
“Don’t even think about it, Albus,” said the stern old witch who had spoken before.
What I meant is, I do not think Dumbledore would confess that he murdered Narcissa to Lucius, if he did not do it. I would rather expect evasive statements instead of a confession. Similar evasive statements as he used in confrontation with Harry.
On the other hand, it seems more like Dumbledore to apologize for Narcissa’s murder to Lucius, if he actually killed her.
Well, this dilemma can be solved by assuming, that Dumbledore used evasive statements, which Lucius understood as confession. But Lucius was supposed to be intelligent, huh ?
Why would Dumbledore use evasive statements to Lucius if Dumbledore’s purpose back then was to convince Lucius that he did kill Narcissa?
His words to Harry are different because the context is different—he wants Harry to understand the necessity behind the Death Eaters thinking he burned Narcissa alive, but there exists disutility both in saying “no, I didn’t burn her alive” and this potentially leaking back to the Death Eaters, and in saying “yes, I did burn her alive” and this potentially leaking back to the Wizengamot.
So he gives Harry the reasons that the belief is necessary, but he doesn’t tell him if it’s true.
And what about the disutility of saying “yes, I did burn her alive” and this potentially leaking back to his supporters ? Wouldn’t it destroy his image as the representant of Light ? Would it still be worth fighting on his side ?
Maybe I am fooled by assuming, that Eliezer Yudkowsky has the same cultural background as I have, and that the light characters strongly believe in Geneva conventions, particularly the protection of non-combatants.
And what about the disutility of saying “yes, I did burn her alive” and this potentially leaking back to his supporters ?
You mean if he actually said it as clearly as that to Lucius Malfoy?
Almost nobody believed Lucius, not even his own supporters in the Wizengamot, as has been mentioned in the story already. Only the Death Eaters seem to have believed it, perhaps because Voldemort believed it.
It’s different if The Boy Who Lived testifies to the same effect (that Dumbledore told him he did it) infront of the Wizengamot.
Witness Draco’s efforts to find some plausible deniability as a Malfoy, and realize what the odds are that anyone would believe Lucius even if he spoke simple truth.
My impression is that the senior Order of the Phoenix members already know the truth, and the Light-side power brokers who don’t know the truth are not particularly interested in evidence.
“And there’s also the secondary possibility that she was burned alive, but that it wasn’t Dumbledore who arranged it to happen, he just took credit for it afterwards to serve his purpose of protecting the families of the Order of the Phoenix.”
Exactly. Similar mechanism as in “Breaking bad” TV series. The legend, that Jesse Pinkman crushed the non-payer Spooge with the ATM machine improved the payment discipline of other customers. Even though Jesse, in fact, did not do that and would never be able of doing it.
I thing it is more likely, that Dumbledore took credit for the murder rather than actually committing it. A premeditated, exemplary murder of innocent women seems too unprobable and OOC for a “light” character. The only think that makes me uncertain about Dumbledore innocence is this part of chapter 80:
When Lucius Malfoy spoke again his voice seemed to tremble ever so slightly, as though the stern control on it was failing. “Blood calls for repayment, the blood of my family. Not for any price will I sell the blood debt owed my son. You would not understand that, who never had love or child of your own. Still, there is more than one debt owed to House Malfoy, and I think that my son, if he stood among us, would rather be repaid for his mother’s blood than for his own. Confess your own crime to the Wizengamot, as you confessed it to me, and I shall—”
“Don’t even think about it, Albus,” said the stern old witch who had spoken before.
What I meant is, I do not think Dumbledore would confess that he murdered Narcissa to Lucius, if he did not do it. I would rather expect evasive statements instead of a confession. Similar evasive statements as he used in confrontation with Harry. On the other hand, it seems more like Dumbledore to apologize for Narcissa’s murder to Lucius, if he actually killed her. Well, this dilemma can be solved by assuming, that Dumbledore used evasive statements, which Lucius understood as confession. But Lucius was supposed to be intelligent, huh ?
Why would Dumbledore use evasive statements to Lucius if Dumbledore’s purpose back then was to convince Lucius that he did kill Narcissa?
His words to Harry are different because the context is different—he wants Harry to understand the necessity behind the Death Eaters thinking he burned Narcissa alive, but there exists disutility both in saying “no, I didn’t burn her alive” and this potentially leaking back to the Death Eaters, and in saying “yes, I did burn her alive” and this potentially leaking back to the Wizengamot.
So he gives Harry the reasons that the belief is necessary, but he doesn’t tell him if it’s true.
And what about the disutility of saying “yes, I did burn her alive” and this potentially leaking back to his supporters ? Wouldn’t it destroy his image as the representant of Light ? Would it still be worth fighting on his side ? Maybe I am fooled by assuming, that Eliezer Yudkowsky has the same cultural background as I have, and that the light characters strongly believe in Geneva conventions, particularly the protection of non-combatants.
You mean if he actually said it as clearly as that to Lucius Malfoy?
Almost nobody believed Lucius, not even his own supporters in the Wizengamot, as has been mentioned in the story already. Only the Death Eaters seem to have believed it, perhaps because Voldemort believed it.
It’s different if The Boy Who Lived testifies to the same effect (that Dumbledore told him he did it) infront of the Wizengamot.
Witness Draco’s efforts to find some plausible deniability as a Malfoy, and realize what the odds are that anyone would believe Lucius even if he spoke simple truth.
My impression is that the senior Order of the Phoenix members already know the truth, and the Light-side power brokers who don’t know the truth are not particularly interested in evidence.