Who was involved in James and Lily's death?

[justcarol67]

No: HPFGUIDX 90343

->Pippin:
> 
> But Harry remembers quite a bit more than a split second of  
> dialogue:
> 
> "Not Harry, not Harry, please not Harry!"
> "Stand aside you silly girl...stand aside, now..."
> "Not Harry, please no, take me, kill me instead--"
> "Not Harry! Please...have mercy...have mercy...."
> 
> "Not Harry! Not Harry! Please--I'll do anything--"
> "Stand aside. Stand aside, girl!"
> 
> 
> Voldemort doesn't seem to be enjoying the screams, yet he 
> doesn't stun her into silence or blast her aside. He seems to 
> really want her to step out of the way of her own free will. 
>

Carol:
Ah. Now we get to the meat of the matter. I'm not sure why Voldemort
hesitated to kill Lily, certainly not out of kindness or affection or
respect for her. But as I said before, he *had* to kill James because
James came at him ready to fight, whereas Lily was not threatening
him; she was merely a "silly girl" standing in his way. She might not
even have been holding a wand. So in his view, she didn't have to die.
All she had to do was stand aside and let him kill her son.

But of course she's not going to stand aside. No mother would. And,
equally important,  she's not going to be silent. look at her words:
"Kill me instead." She *insists* on being killed. Why? Because she
knows that only her self-sacrifice can save Harry. It won't do for her
to be merely stunned. To invoke the "ancient magic" (whether or not it
involves a protective charm she's placed on Harry, as I think it
does), Lily *does* have to die. But LV doesn't know that, either at
Godric's Hollow or in the Quirrelmort scene where he implies that she
died for nothing. He's right that he didn't have to kill her. He could
have stunned her. But he's wrong that she didn't have to die. She did
have to, but for her own reasons, not his.

Carol