Peter's wand and the Evil Fudge ( was; S'mores (some-mores) / Draco and Lucius

[Edblanning at aol.com]

No: HPFGUIDX 35452

Catlady writes:

> All the people who suggest that Peter dropped his wand (along with 
> his finger) before fleeing as a rat, and the Law Enforcement picked 
> it up as Sirius's, so if they PI'd what they thought was Sirius's 
> wand, it would show the dozen-killing curse as the latest spell cast
> .... are you taking into consideration that wands look different? 
> They're different woods and different lengths, even if they don't 
> have the individual & unique decorative carving that I imagine they 
> have. It doesn't take Ollivander to tell an Oak, thirteen inches, 
> from a Mahogany, eight inches. DMLE had Dumbledore give some kind 
> of presumably-sworn statement (he said 'I myself testified', but 
> according to GoF there wasn't a trial) that Sirius had been the 
> Potters' Secret-Keeper, but they didn't have any witness identify the 
> wand?

*All* the people? Oh good, are there others out there who hold the same 
theory? Where are you? It's lonely here at Camp 
Cornelius-Fudge-is-Ever-so-Evil. (Twinned with Camp 
Ludo-Bagman-is-Ever-so-Evil). 

Yes, of course I've taken into account the facts that wands look different. 
But as we have both pointed out, *there wasn't a trial*. So the circumstances 
under which Dumbledore 'testified' are murky, to say the least. I imagine it 
was kind of , 'Just need you to come down to the Ministry to make a statement 
to the effect that Black was the Potter's Secret Keeper, then we've got this 
thing all wrapped up.'
Yes, Ollivander could have identified the wand. That was a potential problem. 
But not nearly so much of a problem as Pettigrew disappearing with the guilty 
wand and the only one at the scene being one that could not possibly have 
committed the crime.
And your objection stands even if my Evil Fudge theory is wrong. They get 
Dumbledore to make a statement, but *they do not check the ownership OR the 
guilt of the wand at the scene of the crime.*
In fact the ownership is not so much of a problem. All they needed was that 
Sirius was apparently in posession of the guilty wand, whether it was his or 
not. Just makes the crime worse, doesn't it, blasting poor little Peter to 
smithereens *with his own wand*.
I think we have to remember the atmosphere of the time. This was war. A man 
was standing there, apparently admitting that he had committed the most 
heinous of crimes. No-one, not even the fair-minded Dumbledore seems to have 
objected to imprisonment without trial. The niceties didn't matter. We had an 
admission, we had a weapon. That was enough. 
It also seems strange, doesn't it, that in all those years in Azkaban, Sirius 
never appealed, never said, 'Look, I can prove I didn't do it, jus PI my 
wand.' No, he knew they had it all wrapped up. Ollivander could testify that 
the guilty wand was Pettigrew's, but it was only Sirius' word that he wasn't 
using it.

And I still can't think of a better way to explain the missing wands, can you?

Eloise, more committed to her theory than ever, plants her deer-stalker on 
her head, throws her cape round her shoulders, draws on her pipe, splutters 
uncontrollably as she's not used to smoking and stalks out into the fog in 
pursuit of more evidence.

'How often have I said to you that when you have eliminated the impossible, 
whatever remains, *however improbable*, must be the truth?
                                                 Sherlock Holmes

PS  thanks for telling me about the S'mores, I don't wish to seem ungracious!


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]