Shaken, not stirred.

[pauraque_bk]

This is a question I haven't been able to answer satisfactorily for my own purposes, which is a bit embarrassing (and burdensome, as a writer), so I'd like to get some fresh opinions.

How could Dumbledore not know Peter was the spy?

Peter was in the Order; presumably he and Dumbledore had some interaction. Dumbledore is an expert Legilimens. Peter is very emotionally demonstrative -- he seems the last person who would be able to conceal such a secret.

Perhaps Peter was so underestimated that Dumbledore would never have thought he was a traitor, no matter how odd his behavior. Or maybe his behavior actually didn't seem odd: He's a nervous person, everyone knew that, and no one thought anything of elevated anxiety during wartime.

Is it possible that Peter was not afraid of the prospect of being found out, either because he placed such trust in Voldemort, or due to some other aspect of the circumstance?

Or might Peter have done such a good job at diverting suspicion onto Remus that it was never really questioned by those who were in the loop?

Whatever the case, it seems odd that Dumbledore wouldn't check everyone in the Order from time to time -- it appears that all he has to do to get a quick read on someone is to look into their eyes. This leads to the thought that something was hindering Dumbledore's ability to read Peter. Many have suggested that Voldemort taught Peter a few tricks, as it were -- could Occlumency be one of them? The Occlumency/Legilimency experts we know (Snape, Dumbledore, Voldemort), are all socially maladjusted in one way or another; Peter would make an interesting addition to this group.

Or might Voldemort have placed Peter under something like the Fidelius Charm, preventing him from revealing the secret?

This one is a bit of a stumper for me. All suggestions welcome.

Comments

[caesia390.livejournal.com]

I think it would be well not to over-estimate the competence of Dumbledore. We've seen from OotP and GoF that is he is quite capable of misjudgement and mistakes; he just presents the picture of omniscience.

We know (largely thanks to you, I might add) that Peter is very good at seeming insignificant and adapting. Survival is something he doesn't even have to think about, so even in the stressful situation of being a spy in the midst of a war, I think he'd unconsciously know what to do to put everyone off his track. Which means drawing attention to Remus (or more likely, presenting information and viewpoints so that others draw attention to Remus), acting in accordance with his loyal-friend-to-James persona (I still haven't decided under what circumstances he betrayed James - still obsessed? regretful?), and basically being not worth the bother to even suspect.

Dumbledore seems very pro-Gryffindor, meaning he values action and bold moves. He wouldn't associate those qualities with Peter, but on the other hand, Peter isn't a Slytherin, to be adept at sneakiness. Not that Dumbledore isn't old or wise enough to imagine shades of grey, but he's the leader of a war effort, under a great deal of pressure himself, and it seems like his own natural prejudices have a certain amount of sway over his thoughts.

Also, I wonder if another failing of Dumbledore isn't hubris - suspecting members of his Order means admitting his own fallability. ...But on the other hand, if he had to suspect someone (which we know he did), then Peter seems a prime suspect in terms of seeming off... which brings us back to square one.

Someday, I am going to be able to make an argument that has a point, I swear...

[exbentley]

I like Occlumens!Peter, or at least the idea of him having picked up a bit from Voldemort; perhaps purely for the very reason of him not being found out.

I think Dumbledore would have been suspicious of him, but didn't have any direct proof, and he was close enough to MPP that he could accuse without giving offense; much in the same way no-one downright accused Remus of being the traitor. That would explain why he believed Sirius without very much proof at the end of book 3, also.

He does seem like a very anxious person, and there would be other stresses. It could be a combination of your ideas; he wasn't that noticable, when you noticed him he was always anxious, and he made sure that even if suspicion arose (as it was likely to in those kind of tense circumstances) there was no way of getting proof.

[ellensmithee.livejournal.com]

These are good points. I also imagine Dumbledore isn't just going around using Legilimency on people without just cause. It would be a massive invasion of privacy, and he is, after all, ostensibly one of the good guys.

[noblerot.livejournal.com]

I have regretfully concluded that Dumbledore is an idiot.

[scarah2.livejournal.com]

One thing about time-traveler!Dumbledore (Ron or whoever else you like).

If Dumbledore already knew how the war, or most of it, panned out, and he'd gone back in time, he'd be trying really hard not to change too much. I've seen a lot of theories that Dumbledore knows all through PoA what's going on, and actually engineers Pettigrew's escape.

I read a play-by-play analysis of the Shrieking Shack where Snape knows everything that's going on, but is trying to stop the kids from saying too much, because he's helping Dumbledore to execute the escape of Pettigrew. His all-caps rants back at the castle are also carefully timed to divert attention from the kids talking to Fudge. I'm not totally convinced, but it did mess with my head.

Amen

[dphearson.livejournal.com]

And yes, amen.

"Why No, Mr. Voldemort, I want you to die!"

[dphearson.livejournal.com]

what we know is this; Dumbledore knew it was someone in the James Potter's circle of friends. I think that with Dumbledore, Occulemency/Legimency is something not be used unless you absolutely have to. so- Peter could have been the traitor, and the traitor for some time, and Dumbledore would not had reason to necessarily suspect him, since it was dear sweet, appreciative Peter, after all.
Here is another thing: Remus said that they were surrounded by DEs towards the end. It may be possible that Peter decided to turn sides really late in the game, when he thought that his side was not going to win. Sirius giving him that information would have been a goldmine of a prize to give to Voldemort, in exchange for his own safety.

Re: "Why No, Mr. Voldemort, I want you to die!"

[sedesdraconis.livejournal.com]

It may be possible that Peter decided to turn sides really late in the game, when he thought that his side was not going to win. Sirius giving him that information would have been a goldmine of a prize to give to Voldemort, in exchange for his own safety.

Now that's a logically compelling suggestion. Perhaps no one knew Peter was a traitor, because he wasn't until such a temptation was set before him, to buy his way in to safety on the other side, at a time when things were becoming critical for his side.

[ptyx.livejournal.com]

Which makes Voldie a double, triple idiot, because Dumby defeats him with a wave of his hand/wand.

Let's face it, Dumbledore is not a consistent/coherent/possible character.

[dailyplanet.livejournal.com]

I think Peter rules so I'm inclined to believe that he is slick enough to fool people, especially if they don't think to frequently scan his brain to check his loyalty. But there was other evidence lying around to implicate Peter that Dumbledore should have picked up on.

Dumbledore makes so many ridiculous mistakes, I don't know how to keep on making excuses for him when new readers ask me: "What's up with Dumbledore??"

At the very least, they had Sirius Black, they could have Occulmens-ed him or stuck his head in a pensieve thingy or done that spell they do on people's wands to see what they cast. Weren't they even slightly curious as to why he went bad? You'd think they'd want to answer some questions.

I also would like to know why they suspected Lupin, and if they did, why they didn't Occulmens him or whatever and get to the bottom of who was the traitor??

They're so sloppy ---BOTH sides in this "war" are!! It gives me the impression that if either side had ONE leader who actually acted rationally this whole thing would be over and done with in a week.

And then we'd have more chapters for Quidditch---forget I said anything, actually...

Re: "Why No, Mr. Voldemort, I want you to die!"

[arwencordelia.livejournal.com]

It may be possible that Peter decided to turn sides really late in the game, when he thought that his side was not going to win.

That is actually what Peter claims when he finally confesses (and tries to justify) his actions to Sirius and Remus in the Shrieking Shack. But Sirius cuts him off, saying he'd been passing information to Voldemort for a year before the Potters' deaths. Peter neither confirms nor denies this.

Here's another not very nice thought about Dumbledore: suppose he did have his suspicions about Peter, but chose to keep quiet about it. Perhaps he figured he could use Peter as an unwilling spy, using Legilimency to get information from Peters mind (assuming this can be done without the "victim" realising it). If Peter were to get killed, it would not be a great loss to the Order, in Dumbledore's mind. He could also engineer things so that Peter never had any important information about the Order to pass on to Voldemort (until Sirius and the Potters messed that up by making Peter secret-keeper....)

[ajaxbreaker.livejournal.com]

Hi, I'm here through someone's friends list and just wanted to join the discussion...

Now that you mention it, it is a bit strange that Dumbledore didn't catch on. It's not as if the Order was that big, and they did know they had a spy among them. Plus, Sirius says Peter leaked info for a whole year before the Potters' deaths. No matter how competent and sneaky Peter may have been, I find it really hard to believe that he could keep it up for that long right under Dumbledore's nose, especially if the Order knew somebody was spying. True, Dumbledore runs a school and has many other things to do, but still. I don't think DD would have shied away from using Legilimency on people without telling them - after all, the safety of the Order was at stake. Plus, I think there are suggestions in a few places in the books that he might have used Legilimency on Harry.

The only solution I can think of is that the Fidelius Charm was used to hide Peter's activities. Voldemort could have become Secret Keeper. If the secret hidden was "Peter Pettigrew spies on the Order", this would ensure Peter's safety. Plus, the Order would still know that someone was the spy, they just wouldn't know who. This leads to everyone starting to suspect each other, for example Sirius & Remus, and spreading discord in this manner is exactly right up Voldemort's alley, wouldn't you say?

The only kink in this theory is that Sirius knew in PoA that Peter was the spy, which he shouldn't have if Peter was protected by Fidelius. I suppose it's possible to argue that once the Potters died, Peter's status was not a secret any more and Sirius could easily deduce the rest despite the Fidelius Charm - especially if the Fidelius is weakened given that the Secret Keeper (Voldemort) doesn't have a body at that moment.

[slinkhard.livejournal.com]

I've seen a lot of theories that Dumbledore knows all through PoA what's going on, and actually engineers Pettigrew's escape.

Really? Do you have any links, please? That's an interesting theory.

[arwencordelia.livejournal.com]

I wonder if another failing of Dumbledore isn't hubris - suspecting members of his Order means admitting his own fallability

Hubris is, in my opinion, the most likely explanation for Dumbledore's behavior. Dumbledore wouldn't have been respected for so long if he weren't both competent, and intelligent. But it seems to me that at some point (perhaps during/after the business with Grindenwald?), the WW began to regard Dumbledore as infallible. Sooner or later, Dumbledore himself must have started to believe this.

He just seems to be someone who's convinced he cannot be mistaken. The one notable time he admits his own fallibility to Harry, at the end of OOTP, he explains that the only reason he made a mistake is because his motives were so noble: he so loved Harry, he didn't want to burden him with vital information; he kept an already emotionally disturbed Sirius locked up only to try and save his life. In other words, Dumbledore's brain would never had failed him, if his heart weren't so darn good. And if that's not hubris, or at least arrogance, I don't know what is...

[slinkhard.livejournal.com]

I dunno, the 'good' side didn't even blink about altering the memory of a child in OotP...

[ellensmithee.livejournal.com]

Which scene was that?

[slinkhard.livejournal.com]

Couldn't tell you chapter/page refs (I read OotP once, kicked it under my bed, where it now resides as an expensive paperweight ;)

But I found this: http://www.geocities.com/willowsevern/book5/kingsley5.html

'Well,' said Dumbledore, surveying her with polite interest over the top of his interlocked fingers, 'they certainly would be, if they had continued after the Decree came into effect. Do you have any evidence that any such meetings continued?'
As Dumbledore spoke, Harry heard a rustle behind him and rather thought Kingsley whispered something. He could have sworn, too, that he felt something brush against his side, a gentle something like a draught or bird wings, but looking down he saw nothing there.

Marietta was standing exactly where Umbridge had released her. She seemed neither perturbed by Umbridge's sudden attack, nor relieved by her release; she was still clutching her robe up to her oddly blank eyes and staring straight ahead of her.
A sudden suspicion, connected to Kingsley's whisper and the thing he had felt shoot past him, sprang into Harry's mind.

'Unfortunately, I had to hex Kingsley too, or it would have looked very suspicious,' said Dumbledore in a low voice. 'He was remarkably quick on the uptake, modifying Miss Edgecombe's memory like that while everyone was looking the other way - thank him, for me, won't you, Minerva?

I think that section rather neatly sums up the 'good' side, for me, anyway...

[ellensmithee.livejournal.com]

Well, I was counting on the Evil!Dumbledore theorists calling me on my calling him "one of the good guys," which is why I added "ostensibly" to my original post. ;-)

Re: "Why No, Mr. Voldemort, I want you to die!"

[isiscolo.livejournal.com]

Oh, that's a good point! I mean, a lot of fanfic has Voldemort knowing that Snape is a spy but using him in some way...this just turns it around.

For me, I think it's just that Peter was underestimated and therefore ignored. It's like the time I played pool for the first time in some complicated elimination game with a whole bunch of people who knew what they were doing. They all took out each other first - I ended up in third place. Now, if I had actually secretly known what I was doing, I would have won, because after all the strong people eliminated each other, I'd have snuck up and beat them. Except, I didn't. :-)

[glitterdemon.livejournal.com]

I also would like to know why they suspected Lupin, and if they did, why they didn't Occulmens him or whatever and get to the bottom of who was the traitor??

I don't think there's any textual evidence that anyone but Sirius suspected Remus, and I think even that can be blown out of proportion. If you know of something that I've forgotten, though, I'd be interested in hearing it.

[neotoma.livejournal.com]

Or if the Fidelis charm breaks when the Secret-Keeper dies -- Voldemort did, at least technically.

[mimine.livejournal.com]

I don't think Dumbledore ever gave Peter much thought. He probably didn't even bother with Legilimens on him. Peter could always rely on others underestimating him.


The double spy theory that Arwencordelia gives above is also fascinating. Dumbledore letting that bumbling fool spy away and then the fool getting the information about the Potters without Dumbledore knowing about it! It is also a very chilling prospect considering that in that case D. must have suspected the switch rather than really believing that both Sirius and Peter had been spies after all (esp. if we assume that he had Legilimensed Sirius and found him clear) yet apparently did nothing to help Sirius.

Re: "Why No, Mr. Voldemort, I want you to die!"

[pauraque]

But Sirius cuts him off, saying he'd been passing information to Voldemort for a year before the Potters' deaths. Peter neither confirms nor denies this.

I think it was true that someone was passing information for a year, or else this is an odd thing for Sirius to say (even in his agitated state). And the way they talk about it -- "Forgive me for thinking you were the spy" -- the one we knew existed. Also, if there were no evidence of a spy at all, where did the suspicion of Remus come from?

DD knows...

[goldie-black.livejournal.com]

I figure DD did know Petey was the spy (did he not offer himself up as secret keeper?). But thought Sirius was the final choice. So, it's Sirius' screw up in thinking the spy was Lupin (and Lupin thinking Sirius). No?

[dailyplanet.livejournal.com]

That's a good point, maybe it was only Black who thought he couldn't trust Lupin --- but it's not unlikely that it was the Potters too, since they approved the switch. We don't know if they agreed with Black or were just humouring him. There's some story behind it, I'm sure!