[HPforGrownups] Harry's Wand Conjures the Dark Mark - Significance?

[Edward Post]

No: HPFGUIDX 51119


Would it even be necessary to have the spells replayed from Harry's wand 
since Barty Jr. had confessed, in front of four witnesses, that it was he 
Barty Jr.) who conjoured the Dark Mark?
>
>Patty
>
===============

To which Ed merely replies:   it wouldn't be necessary in a WW where
everybody believes everybody else.  But, if the future holds the Dumbledore 
"side" as opposed to the "Fudge" side, the witnesses might be split and only 
have their words to back them up.  The courtroom would be full of 
"Objection!  Hearsay!"

The wand replay would be considered more objective evidence.


Ed

==============
To which Patty replies: It would be evidence of whose wand conjoured the 
Dark Mark, but not of the wizard behind the wand.


Patty

==============
Ed:

Ed and Patty agree on the facts and on what the evidence says *to them*.  Ed 
stubbornly asserts, still, that even though evidence doesn't prove the case 
to all observers, it's still evidence and, in showcase trials -- and a HP 
trial might be even more showcase in the Wizards' world than an OJ trial was 
in our own weird world -- showboating might count more than the actual 
facts.

"If the wand isn't tricked, you must convict!"

This thread asked about the significance of the fact that Harry's wand 
conjured the Dark Mark.  All I'm saying is that in a kangaroo court (or that 
of any bouncing magical creature), the wand has the potential to be used as 
evidence against Harry's 'good'ness and in favor of his 'dark'ness -- 
whether or not sympathetic wizards will back up Harry's version of things 
(and the truth).

_________________________________________________________________
MSN 8 with e-mail virus protection service: 2 months FREE*  
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus