Avery and Ambushes

[lucky_kari]

No: HPFGUIDX 35298

>From the brig of the Good Ship LOLLIPOPS, where she has been put to 
meditate her nearly accomplished mutiny, and to be restrained till the 
madness has passed.

----------

> LOL!  What, you mean there was somebody who *didn't* view the 
Mystery 
> of the Fourth Man as the central enigma of the entire novel?

No, I said, "Crouch Jr., Lestranges, and another DE" to myself, and 
never even thought of it again. I also ask my long-suffering brother 
to explain commercials when we're watching TV. "But why was the guy 
standing there with the beer can?"

> I favor Thin Nervous Eye-Darty Man as Avery myself.  But the Fourth 
> Man theory is also willing to accomodate those who favor Thin 
Nervous 
> Eye-Darty Man as Lestrange, and Thick-set Blank-Stare Man as (an 
> already bordering on catatonic? or merely in a state of despair?) 
> Avery.
> 
> Fourth Man is very inclusive that way.

True, but I would not feel that good if we partnered the renowned Mrs. 
Lestrange with "thin nervous eye-darty man". Of course, I could add 
dealing with an idiotic husband, who messed up all their plans and 
told Lucius Malfoy about the Voldemort hunt, who passed the 
information on to the authorities. (One of my little pet 
non-canon-related theories.) 

No, I'm for thick-set blank-stare man as Mr. Lestrange. How come 
no-one waxes eloquent about Mr. Lestrange, btw?


> Hey, young Crouch *could* have been innocent -- of torturing the 
> Longbottoms, at any rate.  No way to know for sure, is there?  He 
> sure seems like a sadist in GoF, but I imagine that ten years spent 
> under the Imperius Curse could do a lot of funny things to your 
>mind.

I want to keep Crouch Jr. involved, since it makes the Neville/Crouch 
Jr. link more poignant. But maybe, Crouch Jr. wasn't strictly involved 
in the actual torturing. Perhaps, he agreed that they should go after 
Frank Longbottom, but he and Avery objected to torturing Mrs. 
Longbottom, who, btw, was clearly not an auror. Or just Avery. Hmmm. 
"Nerveless Hysterics" aren't usually that great at torturing people 
when push comes to shove, come to think about it.

What if Avery's clearing included hard evidence that he hadn't been 
involved in the torturings? Wizarding evidence of DNA's stature. 

> I think that if that's what Snape's gotta do, then he'll manage just 
> fine.  He's got tons of great excuses he can draw on, and unlike 
> Avery, he isn't a Nerveless Hysteric.  It woudn't surprise me, in 
> fact, if he managed to pull it off without having to endure even a 
> single Cruciatus -- although unlike Cindy, I find this notion more 
> relieving than disappointing.

/me tries to square this with the Elkins who was chanting "BLOODY 
AMBUSH! BLOODY AMBUSH!" and fails.

> > "Avery-Nott-Crabbe-Goyle-"
> 
> > "You are merely repeating the names of those who were cleared of 
> > being Death Eaters thirteen years ago," said Fudge angrily. "You 
> > could have found those names in old reports of the trials!" 
> 
> <Elkins nods grimly>
> 
> Eeeeee-yup.  That's canon, all right.  And since I can think of no 
> reason why Fudge would be lying there, we've just got to accept it.

Then, we have two suggested solutions.

Elkins: 
> Because what you have to understand about Fudge is that he was swept 
> into office on precisely the same wave of public sentiment that led 
> to Avery's pardon -- a Bleeding Heart backlash that _did not last._
AND
> So as things turned out, Avery's pardon did not prove to be at all 
> the great political coup that Crouch's successor had hoped for.  Far 
> from it: it was a bit of an embarrassment for everyone,
AND
> So *this* is the reason that Fudge mentions Avery's original
> acquittal but not his more recent (and more notorious) pardon.  To 
> mention the latter would touch far too closely on the subject of his 
> own rather dubious claims to the position as Minister of Magic, as 
> well as reminding everyone present of one of his own failed attempts 
> to manipulate public sentiment for political advantage -- and that's 
> a can of worms he most decidedly does *not* want opened right now. 
> Not with these allegations of Voldemort's return and all.  His 
> position could be getting unstable enough as it is in the very near 
> future, without dragging in all of *that* old business.


Whereas Cindy writes:
>However, I can see through my binoculars that all is not well in
>the Fourth Man two-person kayak. Indeed, it appears that the Fourth 
>Man has fallen overboard and is flailing helplessly, unable to haul 
>his ample backside to the beach. 

That's it. Dudley Dursley was the fourth man!

AND

> I think we can dismiss Fudge's comment and we need not conclude that 
> Avery was "acquitted" 13 years ago as Fudge says.  Not because Fudge 
> is lying.  Or stupid.  Or remembering incorrectly.  No, we can 
> dismiss Fudge's remark for a completely different reason.
> 
> The reason that we needn't put much stock in Fudge's statement has 
to 
> do with JKR.  Um, how can I put this delicately?  Er, JKR, bless 
her, 
> wouldn't know an acquittal if it bit her in the behind.  Trial, 
> acquittal, conviction, sentencing, pardon, plea bargain -- it's all 
> the same to her.  

That is, I am afraid, true.

AND

> No, I see no reason to think that Fudge is referring to an actual 
> acquittal of Avery following a trial.  As I said earlier, Fudge 
> probably pardoned Avery, and Fudge uses "acquittal" to mean "got 
> off".  The question, then, is whether this happened 13 years ago or 
> at some other time.

AND

> The Lexicon list Barty Crouch Jr.'s birthday as 1962.  So if he is 
> 19 when he goes to Azkaban, that would be 1981.  As Fourth Man Avery 
> would have been arrested at the same time as young Crouch, this is 
> also in 1981.

Where does the lexicon get the birthday? Is it just an assumption from 
a 1981 date?


> So . . . Crouch was sent to prison right after the Longbottoms were 
> tortured in 1981 (on the strength of Neville's Reverse Memory Charm 
> testimony, mind), and he was pardoned when Fudge became Minister of 
> Magic shortly thereafter.  Avery is a Lucky Man.  He has a 
first-rate 
> lawyer and a lobbyist on staff.

Cindy. I see a problem. How does Avery get off if Neville with his 
magically enhanced testimony fingers him and Crouch? 

And Crouch certainly has to "die" quickly to get this theory going. 
No, too short. I like Elkins's idea better. Sorry.

Other interesting ideas.

Elkins:
>Sirius, you will remember, has come by the majority of his 
> information on this subject *after* his escape from Azkaban ("This 
is 
> mostly stuff I've found out since I got out"); it was evidently not 
> an incident that was much gibbered about by the imprisoned DEs.  And 
> Sirius' suggestion that Crouch might just "have been in the wrong 
> place at the wrong time" is telling as well -- wherever would he 
have 
> come by this idea?  Why, from Avery's own defense, of course!

Very good. It's almost <gasp> canonical evidence.

Then, Elkins and Cindy reconcile to allow Avery to have a secondary 
job in the DMC. I'm no-one to complain, but no-one liked my suggestion 
that he works for Bagman (ever-so-evil or not) and is the new Minister 
of Magical Sports and Games. However, the secondary job probably works 
better for Avery to be introduced as the guy we don't know. More on 
that later, but did DMC Avery clean up things at Godric's Hollow?

Cindy writes:
> Eh, I'm flexible here, but Avery could have Voldemort's wand without 
> it presenting any problems for Fourth Man.  Avery, as you say, has 
> lost his zest for life as a DE.  This happens as soon as he is sure 
> Voldemort is gone.  So Avery obtained Voldemort's wand at Godric's 
> Hollow and tampered with Sirius' wand.  But as soon as he knew 
> Voldemort was really, really dead, he gave the wand to someone.  It 
> was "hot," and Avery didn't want it.  
> 
> I just can't think of who Avery might have given it to.

Mrs. Lestrange, who decided that the wand could somehow help them find 
V. again?

Elkins adds:
> He was particularly motivated to do this, you see, because Sirius 
had 
> once played a rather nasty prank on him back in their school days, 
> and...

Florence, you see, was Avery's sister. 

> But I'm not willing to give you Avery-Retrieved-Voldemort's-Wand-
From-
> Godric's-Hollow as well, because that would run completely counter 
to 
> the entire "Avery has avoided the other DEs like the plague ever 
> since his release from Azkaban" aspect of the Fourth Man theory, 
> which is central. 

I don't follow you here. Wouldn't the wand-retreiving be back when 
Avery still was enthused enough to hang around the Lestranges? 

> Pettigrew can have Voldemort's wand all to himself. <snerk>

True, it's still got to get back to Voldemort after all in the end.

We could have it.

1. Pettigrew picks up wand.
2. Gives it to Voldemort.

OR

1. Avery picks up wand 
2. Gives to Crouch Jr.
3. Confiscated by Crouch Sr., who keeps it around just in case.
4. Voldemort gets it back when he visits the Crouch residence.

Back to Elkins on Avery's job:
> Mmmmmm.  Yeah, okay.  I'm willing to run with this, if only because 
> it offers yet *more* reason for Fudge to have wanted to avoid the 
> issue of Avery's second acquittal altogether.  Probably even Fudge 
> has come to suspect, way down deep in his very heart of hearts, that 
> Avery really was guilty all along.

But Avery really has repented, so Fudge isn't afraid, and feels sorry 
for him, as the description below warrants.

> He's still a lowly (but NOT yet middle-
> aged!) desk drone, mistrusted and ill-respected by his co-workers, 
> who occasionally gather around the water cooler to mutter darkly 
> among themselves while shooting him suspicious glances.  (He takes 
> far too many sick days, too, and occasionally goes on extended 
> personal leaves of absence for "reasons of emotional health.")

/me begins to cry and purchases a S.Y.N.C.H.O.P.H.A.N.T.S. badge.

> Yeah, okay.  So if any bit of plot does revolve around Unrecognized 
> DE Avery, I guess it'll have to be a fairly minor one, and take 
place 
> outside of Hogwarts.
> 
> <sigh>
> 
> Boy.  Good thing I didn't put any money down on that one.  Isn't it

Now, wait a second. What plot do we know that is trying to pass itself 
off as a fairly minor one but obviously is central to the story? One 
that's taking place at the Ministry of Magic, conveniently enough.

The Saga of Percy Weatherby

Percy, now the youngest ever Department Head, has Avery shuffled into 
his department. Who wouldn't try to pawn Avery off on the newcomer who 
doesn't know the ins and outs of things? Avery is so ill respected at 
the Ministry that - Horror of Horrors! - everyone except Percy calls 
him by his yet to be determined first name. Unfortunately, Avery, at 
V's command, gets rather close to Weatherby, resulting in misfortunes 
for our side. When HRH finally visit the Ministry, which will happen 
I'm sure, we'll have a moment of irony, when they meet Avery, and some 
office worker makes some remark about him using his given name, that 
would have told HRH the game was up, if the last name had been used. 

Now, that's uncanonical. 

On to the bloody ambush:
>I mean, surely Big Bad Evil Voldemort would be
> perfectly willing to sacrifice a couple of his younger Death Eaters 
> to help his valuable spy trick muggle-loving old fool Dumbledore, 
> wouldn't he?  (Hell, even *I'd* be willing to do that, and I'm just 
a 
> SYCOPHANT, not an Evil Overlord.)  And surely Dumbledore would 
> realize that.  So Snape's willingness to lead his colleagues into an 
> ambush wouldn't even be a very *good* proof of his loyalty.

True. Sorry, Cindy. I'll have to retract my support for the ambush 
being the loyalty proof. 

I'll skip over the ambush material. It seems to be well thought out, 
and I agree with Cindy:
>(who is too tired to even *think* about sorting out the ambush 
>and the cells, and who doesn't know where Elkins gets the energy)

Elkins: of BLOODY AMBUSH! BLOODY AMBUSH! and GLORIOUS FIREFIGHT! fame
> Oh, good Lord.  When precisely did I *get* like this?  
> 
> Cindy?  Are you *sure* there was nothing in that brandy?

I've been wondering that too. Something is wrong with me. This is not 
me, the person who cringes when Wile E. Coyote hits the tarmac. 

Kudos on the subversive Neville-Crouch theory, but does it explain why 
Crouch seeks Neville out?

Cindy wrote:
> Now move over, 
> because cramming three people into a two-person kayak is a bit 
>tight.

Four in the kayak, actually. 

Cindy: Move over!
Avery: I can't. (Begins to cry.)
Cindy: Toughen up, will you. I bet you eat ice-cream straight from 
the carton while lying in bed
Avery: Forgive me! (shrieking) Cindy, forgive me!

Eileen

PS I still can't get over the fact that we've seriously gone into 
analysing an almost non-existent character.