Imperious Molly!

[Veronica]

No: HPFGUIDX 45518

This darn thing ate my response, 
so I'll try again. It this appears 
twice, I apologize!

smellee wrote:

Here is my slightly different spin. 
In the GOF, chapter nine, page 
142 in American editions, Mr Weasley 
says "Just Picture coming home 
and finding the Dark Mark hovering 
over your house, and knowing what 
you are about to find inside...." 
Mr Weasley winced. " Everyones 
worst fear... the very worst.."

Could be just me, but it sounds like 
he is speaking from personal experience. 
Now, for Arthur to be responsible for 
the attack on his family, he would 
have go home, commit the act, leave, 
be released from the curse, and then 
come home and see the dark mark. This 
doesnt make much sense. 

BY the way, If it was Arthur, why 
would he be suprised when he goes 
home? He already knows what happened, 
even if he couldn't stop himself. He 
wouldn't need the Dark Mark to tell 
him what has happened. Well. no, he 
says "Knowing" what he will find. 


Veronica replies:

YOu make some excellent points, but I have to disagree 
with some of your generalizations.

Imperius!Arthur is a very complex theory, and I think 
that perhaps you are confusing it with Filicide!Arthur. 
YOu see, there are numerous catories within the 
Imperius!Arthur theory.

The first, as you pointed out, the Filicide!Arthurs, 
believe that Arthur, while under the control of the 
Imperius curse, killed the *theoretical* missing child.

Others believe that Arthur was under the Imperius curse 
at some time, but was not responsible for killing the 
missing child, but that a Death Eater or Voldemort did 
it. There are any number of possible reasons why it 
happened. My personal favorite is that Arthur eventually 
freed himself of the Curse, and the angry Death Eater 
took revenge by killing one of his children.

Regardless of the reason for the death, this theory does 
take care of some of the issues you raised. Arthur would 
have the first-hand experience with the Dark Mark. He would 
have come home from work to find that one of his children 
had been killed, and you don't have to ask the questions 
you mentioned (How did he not remember doing it, and why 
was he surprised if he was responsible?)

There are even some folks who like the Imperius!Arthur 
theory who do not subscribe to the missing child idea at 
all, much less that Arthur did it.

So, in it's most natural form, the Imperius Arthur theory 
does not hold Arthur responsible for killing one of his 
child; however, it doesn't rule the idea out, either. It 
merely suggests that at some point in the first "war" against 
Voldemort, Arthur was Imperio'd and used, unwillingly, as a 
Pawn for the dark lord.

Hope that helps,
Veronica