Some FF: Dumbledore and Scabbers, was Re: Worried about Hermione/others

[kiricat2001]

No: HPFGUIDX 55936

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, heidi <heidit at n...> wrote:

> --- Susanne <siskiou at e...> wrote:
> 
> > Maybe he's just really sure Pettigrew didn't ever
> > attempt to
> > change back to human form during his time at the
> > Weasleys or
> > at Hogwarts, for some reason?
> 
> 
> I can't see how sure of that he can be, given that
> there is some canon support for the argument that
> Pettigrew not only turned back into a wizard on
> occasion, he also spoke (i.e. possibly said spells,
> etc). 
 
> That canon support is in PoA, when he's changed back
> into a wizard and his voice is not unused-sounding,
> but high and squeaky and not particularly unusual in
> its speech patterns and pauses, like Harry notes
> Sirius' is. 

I think you're on thin ice here. The assumption seems to be that 
everyone's voice will sound the same after a long time of unuse. Why 
couldn't someone's voice sound high and squeaky after not being used 
for a long time? And, I don't know that comparing Peter (12 years as 
a rat) with Sirius (12 years undergoing daily mental torture) is a 
good comparison.  Sirius not only did not have steady interaction 
with other humans, he was under constant guard by Dementors.  Peter's 
voice may very well be high and squeaky, but at least he had the 
occasion to be exposed to normal speech by the humans around him.  
So, he very well may have retained normal speech patterns.

 
> Further, there is canon evidence that Pettigrew spent
> three to four years in the Weasley household before
> Percy took him off to school (again, PoA, Ron's speech
> in the Shack), and of course, even while Percy was at
> school, Peter likely summered at the Weasleys (as we
> know from CoS that students do not stay at Hogwarts
> for the summer). Thus, Peter spent a considerable
> amount of time in a house with access to wands, wands
> which nobody would think to conceal from a rat - even
> before Percy had one, Molly and Arthur did. 
> 
> So it's possible to engage in only a tiny bit of
> "connecting the dots" to conclude that Peter was able
> to learn a lot about the Weasley family... and more
> frightening than that, Peter did have opportunities
> aplenty to put spells on members of the family that he
> could take advantage of if he needed to do so later. 
> 
Well, I suppose that can be true.  They must have been subtle spells, 
as I can't imagine Molly not picking up on a marked change in 
behavior of one of her children.

Marianne