Wizarding Justice, again

[cindysphynx]

No: HPFGUIDX 34127

Elkins wrote:

> Yes.  I'd also like to add that while people keep referring to 
these 
> scenes as "trials," they aren't really.  What we see of Crouch and 
> Bagman's trials are only the *sentencings.*  Both parties would
> seem to have been already found guilty in their respective scenes
> (Bagman was not acquitted of the charges against him; he was merely
> absolved from penalty, which is not at all the same thing).  What
> we see in both cases is the declaration of verdict and the 
> sentencing, not the trial as a whole.

I agree that we don't see trials for Crouch and Karkaroff, although 
JKR specifically calls them "trials" in the Pensieve scene.  I think 
Karkaroff is essentially doing a plea bargain, and Crouch's 
proceeding is definitely a sentencing.

Bagman, however, was acquitted so far as I can tell.  Crouch Sr. says 
they have heard the evidence and "are about to reach our verdict."  
Then they let him off.  I guess Bagman's proceedings was a return of 
the verdict (although I can't recall what that is called).

Bagman is, IMHO, as guilty as sin and is a big bad old evil DE, and 
he apparated to the graveyard that night when the Dark Mark burned on 
his arm.  I just can't prove it yet.  

Cindy (waiting for OoP so she find out if she is right about Bagman)