SYCHOPHANTS/Privet Drive Protection

[elfundeb at aol.com]

No: HPFGUIDX 37161

DG wrote:

       Consider this: the direct result of Harry's choice to spare Wormtail 
       was the death of the Ripple house caretaker, Bertha Jorkins, Crouch 
       Sr, and Cedric Diggory - at least, so far. Is there any doubt that 
        there will be more deaths?

       Killing Wormtail in the shack would not have been murder. It would 
       have been self-defense and a healthy dose of justice.

True, but Harry was a 13-year-old wizard under stress without an appetite for 
murder.  It would have been astonishing for him to recognize the justice of 
killing Pettigrew under the circumstances, and it would not have been in 
Harry's character to kill him for revenge.  Besides, Sirius and Lupin agreed 
to support Harry's decision, giving him "permission" to let him go.

Cindy regarding the function of the Put-Outer on the 12 street lamps :

       If you think about it, there really isn't much of a compelling reason 
       for Dumbledore to extinguish the lights in the first place, IMO.  The 
       street is deserted, and it is the middle of the night.  When 
       Dumbledore extinguishes the lights, he doesn't yet know that Hagrid 
       will show up in a fashion (on a flying motorcycle) that might 
       generate curiosity among the muggles.  Also, if Dumbledore wishes for 
       darkness, he really doesn't have to extinguish 12 street lamps, does 
       he?  Two or four, perhaps, but extinguishing 12 lamps seems like far 
       more than necessary to darken the Dursleys' home.  

Had a neighbor woken up in the middle of the night and looked outside his 
bedroom window, he might have seen two wizards in full regalia and a 
half-giant with a baby (who will soon be known to all the neighbors to have 
taken up residence at the Dursleys').  I think that's reason enough to 
extinguish the lamps.  Extinguishing 12 lights makes it look like there's a 
momentary problem with the street lights on Privet Drive rather than a 
mysterious blackness around the Dursley home.
    
    A surveillance device that lets the good wizards know everything 
       that is happening on Privet Drive.  This works a lot better, I 
       think.  We certainly know that MoM instantly knows about all magic 
       that happens on Privet Drive, based on their response to Dobby's 
       magic and Aunt Marge (and we know they don't react instantly to magic 
       other underage wizards perform).  We know that Hagrid or Dumbledore 
       knows that Harry isn't receiving his letters, that he is moved from 
       the cupboard to the bedroom, and that the Dursleys flee.  Maybe each 
       of the 12 street lamp is a separate surveillance device, perhaps 
       sending different types of information (magic usage, communication 
       monitoring, visual image) to different recipients (one for MoM, one 
       for Dumbledore, one for Mrs. Figg, etc.)

Hmm . . . I think the surveillance idea is interesting but I can't reconcile 
it with the fact that Dobby's magic caused a Ministry employee to send the 
most ill-timed letter to Harry at the Dursleys, while the Muggle Masons were 
still in attendance.  
Surely if they had all this surveillance they would have noticed the Masons' 
presence?  And if the Improper Use of Magic Office needed a special 
surveillance device to notice the magic at Privet Drive, that would the 
restriction on magic outside of school is basically completely unenforceable 
except against select targets in select places.
So I doubt that the street lamps were necessary to detect magic at Privet 
Drive.  And if they weren't necessary to detect magic, I'm not convinced why 
they were necessary to detect visual images, etc.  I'm afraid the theory 
sounds to me to be something out of a Muggle spy movie.

       Maybe the answer is that Harry is safe when he is in 
       the presence of his relations, which several people have already 
       proposed as part of Harry's protection.  

I tend to think that the entirety of Harry's protection resides in the 
Dursleys themselves, and that the letter from Dumbledore told them in no 
uncertain terms, and on pain of consequences that the Dursleys would have 
thought horrific, that they were not to leave Harry under any circumstances 
except with Mrs. Figg (and I bet her house is Unplottable).  I can't imagine 
any other reason on earth the Dursleys would have been willing to take an 
eleven-year-old Harry to Dudley's party rather than just leave him at home.  
But this means I haven't found any purpose for those twelve balls of fire 
Dumbledore sends with the Put-Outer, unless he was using the Put-Outer to 
cast the protective spell.  After all, he never takes out a wand.  And he 
can't possibly have left Harry there without the protection in place.  Is it 
possible that Dumbledore's wand was concealed in the Put-Outer, or that the 
wand was transfigured into a cigarette lighter, just in case something went 
wrong?

       Had Dudley gone to Smeltings and Harry gone to 
       a different muggle school, that protection might not have existed.  
       It might be a good thing that the wizarding world spirited Harry away 
       to Hogwarts when they did.

The protection would indeed have been gone, and no doubt Dumbledore & Co. 
knew it, and would have taken any means necessary to get Harry to Hogwarts.  
Come to think of it, though, Harry had a few perilous moments at King's Cross 
station after Vernon left him there, till the Weasleys turned up.  By 
forgetting to tell Harry how to cross the barrier at King's Cross (I'm 
assuming it was Hagrid's job), Hagrid could have caused Harry's downfall had 
the baddies been alert.  Lucius could have snatched him up, if he was there 
seeing Draco off.

Debbie, not quite ready to label Hagrid a coward, being content with 
"reckless" and "incompetent"


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