DE Intros; Logic of Lily's Sacrifice; Graveyard Wand Use; Wandless Apparating

[erisedstraeh2002 <erisedstraeh2002@yahoo.com>]

No: HPFGUIDX 48984

Tzvi of Brooklyn wrote:

> In GoF when Karkarof is being interogated in front of the 
> ministry he claims that Voldermort solely knows the names of all 
> the Death Eaters. When they return to his side he simply introduces 
> them all. Perhaps Karkarof is just lying to save his own skin. He 
> might have been protecting some other people. Or JKR was just 
> contradicting her statements.

Now me:

Voldemort does not introduce all of the DEs in the graveyard.  Ch. 
33, GoF: "Some of the Death Eaters he passed in silence, but he 
paused before others, and spoke to them."

While I don't doubt that Karkaroff lies to save his own skin, I have 
a harder time accepting that JKR contradicts herself! ;)

Potter Hermione Forever wrote:

> But, It raises one question. Why was Voldemort not able to 
> kill Harry when he was a baby. He did not have a wand then?
> I agree that Lily sacrificed herself for Harry. But, what does that 
> mean? Does that mean she came between the 'Avada Kedavra' curse 
> meant for Harry & got killed instead or was it something else?
> D'dore said something about LOVE. That is so corny. I was looking 
> for something more logical.

Now me:

I struggled with the Lily sacrifice at first too, because I was also 
looking for something more logical.  While I've since convinced 
myself that the Lily sacrifice was what protected Harry, an 
alternative theory is that the "ancient magic" that Dumbledore 
invoked to protect Harry while he's at the Dursleys was also invoked 
to protect Harry while he was with his parents.  Voldemort refers to 
the ancient magic protecting Harry while he was in the care of his 
relations, so presumably it would work while he was in his parents' 
care in the same way it worked while he lived with the Dursleys.  
Since I believe in the Heir of Gryffindor theory, I think 
the "ancient magic" is a protection that is imparted by Gryffindor 
himself (somehow!).

Potter Hermione Forever again:

> Harry was using his wand while fighting Voldemort. Voldemort 
> ordered Pettigrew to give Harry his wand back! Harry was carrying 
> his wand when he touched the Cup.

Me again:

Voldemort hits Harry with the Cruciatus curse while Harry is still 
tied to the gravestone.  After Voldemort unties Harry and gives him 
his wand back, he hits Harry again with the Cruciatus curse before 
Harry can defend himself.  He also hits Harry with the Imperius curse 
before Harry can react.  So while Harry has his wand for the latter 
two curses, he's not using it.  It's only when Harry uses his wand to 
throw the Expelliarmus that the wands lock together and the priori 
incantatem begins.

Melody asked:

> Wait - do you need a wand to apparate? Have we any proof of that? 
> Maybe it is a skill learned like animagus that uses the 
> wand initially but later does not require it directly. Hmmm...

Now me:

We had a discussion about this awhile back, and I think the general 
consensus at the time was that a wizard does not need a want to 
apparate.  The times we've seen wizards apparate, there's no mention 
of wand use or a verbal incantation.  And in some instances (the 
salesmen at the QWC come to mind), the wizards are holding objects in 
their hands which would make it difficult for them to be wielding a 
wand as well.  

It makes sense to me that a wizard wouldn't use a wand to apparate.  
A wand is used to channel the wizard's energy into the spell that 
he/she's conjuring at another wizard or object.  Since the apparation 
is something the wizard is doing to him/herself, I see it as them 
needing to internally channel their energy and focus inward, which 
they wouldn't necessarily need a wand to do.  

~Phyllis