Let the cat out of the Bag(man)

[Berit Jakobsen]

No: HPFGUIDX 91441

The subject of whether Ludo Bagman is/was a Death Eater has no doubt 
been discussed a number of times. I don't know if this is a correct 
observation, but I get the impression most posters believe Ludo isn't 
and never was a DE. I've reread GoF, specifically looking for 
information on Ludo Bagman and would like to present my thoughts.

>From the very first time Bagman is mentioned, we get the impression 
of someone who is "likable enough", but a bit impulsive and doesn't 
take life too seriously (according to Percy :-). He wears flashy 
colourful sports attire and radiate childish innocence with his round 
blue eyes, short blond hair and rosy complexion; a big over-excited 
baby! (GoF p. 57-58, 80-81, 224, 514 UK Ed). His impulsiveness, 
rashness and love for Quidditch has unfortunately made him addicted 
to gambling, his only known "vice".

Bagman is a popular figure in the wizarding world, everybody (with a 
couple of exceptions) loves him and trusts him. This is very obvious 
in his trial scene at the MoM, were his every word is followed by 
ringing applause, and instead of the jury sentencing him to a prison 
sentence Bagman is congratulated on his latest Quidditch win. Bagman 
also gives the impression of being very earnest (his round blue eyes 
widening) when he insisted he didn't know he was working for the DE's 
passing information to them (GoF p. 514 UK Ed).

Also, the readers get the impression Bagman is far too "innocent" and 
stupid to have been a DE. This is also Mad-Eye Moody's impression:
Quote: "[Bagman saying at his trial] `...I know I've been a bit of an 
idiot –`
`You never spoke a truer word, boy' muttered [Mad-Eye Moody]. `If I 
didn't know he'd *always* been dim, I'd said those Bludgers had 
permanently affected his brain...' (GoF p. 514 UK Ed).

Finally; even Dumbledore seems to vouch for him:
Quote: "'Then Mr Crouch's son might not have been involved?' said 
Harry slowly.
Dumbledore shook his head. `As to that, I have no idea.'
...'Er, he [Harry] said, `Mr Bagman...'
`...has never been accused of any Dark activity since,' said 
Dumbledore calmly.
`And ... er ...' . But the Pensieve seemed to be asking the question 
for him. Snape's face was swimming on the surface again. Dumbledore 
glanced down into it, then up at Harry.
`No more has Professor Snape,' he said." (GoF p. 524 UK Ed).

Of course; Dumbledore, quite correctly, always assumes a man's 
innocence until proven otherwise. By the way; Dumbledore doesn't 
answer the question whether Bagman used to be a DE, just that he has 
not been accused of any such activity since (neither has a certain 
Mr. Malfoy...). What does that leave us? *Nothing*... DD very 
cleverly beats around the bush, making it appear he has answered 
Harry's question, when really, his answer hasn't brought any new 
light to the true intentions of Mr Bagman...

The innocence of three people are being asked here. We know now that 
Crouch Jr was indeed a "real" DE. We know for sure that Snape has 
been a DE (but don't yet know for sure if he still is), and Ludo? We 
don't know for sure whether he really was a DE, and we don't know if 
he is now. He is a bigger puzzle than Snape is!

Evidence that Ludo Bagman might have been a DE despite his baby-blue 
eyes:

There is no question at all that he DID pass information to the DE's. 
We only have his words that he didn't know what he was doing. Now, 
can Ludo Bagman's words be trusted? Has he ever been known to not 
tell the truth? Has he ever been known to be evasive, to avoid 
trouble by fleeing/lying? Ask Fred and George. Ask Harry. Ask the 
Goblins. Ask all the other wizards who were cheated of their 
winnings. 
Quote: "[Fred saying] `The Goblins play as dirty as him [Bagman]" 
(GoF p. 635 UK Ed). Ludo is a man who plays dirty to wriggle out of 
tight spots... If he can do that to avoid paying his gambling debts, 
would he be capable of trying to wriggle his way out of more serious 
matters, like deny his allegiance to Lord Voldemort? Is it possible 
that we, the readers, and the rest of the wizarding world, are so 
taken in by Bagman's joviality and happy facade that we are prepared 
to excuse or overlook his darker sides?

And note that the only reason he got off so easily from the charge 
made against him was his popularity due to his pleasant personality 
and his sports achievements (Mr. Crouch was the only one that was 
more than ready to sentence him like he had sentenced his own son).

I know you don't trust anything Rita Skeeter says, but hear me out: 
She was present at Bagman's hearing. She told Hermione later on that 
she knew things about Bagman that would make her hair curl. Later 
Hermione thinks Rita referred to the fact that Bagman had passed 
information to the DE's (GoF p. 527 UK Ed). Much, much more 
interesting is what Rita told her photographer:
Quote: "'And what's he [Ludo] doing with a pack of goblins in tow 
anyway? Showing them the sights ... what nonsense ... *he was always 
a bad liar*.'" (GoF p. 387-390 UK Ed). ALWAYS a bad liar? Could she 
be referring to the hearing as well?

I don't see why Rita Skeeter would lie or make up stories to fool her 
own photographer, her fellow Daily Prophet colleague. What she says 
to Hermione or Harry (or the Daily Prophet readers) is an entire 
different matter, but I trust her to be honest when addressing a co-
worker.

Our next "witness" is not too "trustworthy" due to the fact that he 
wanted to lock up (without a fair trial) anyone he thought had 
anything to do with the DE's , regardless of whether there was hard 
evidence or not: Barty Crouch Sr.
Quote: "'Mr Bagman comes too? Squeaked Winky... she looked angry 
again. `Mr Bagman is a bad wizard! My master isn't liking him, oh no, 
not at all!'
`Bagman – bad?' said Harry.
`Oh, yes,' Winky said, nodding her head furiously. `My master is 
telling Winky some things! But Winky is not saying ... Winky keeps 
her master's secrets...'" (GoF p. 333 UK Ed).

As said before, we know Mr Crouch was the over-jealous type, but the 
way Winky goes on about Bagman, it sounds like Mr Crouch had real 
reasons for suspecting Bagman was a DE. It doesn't sound like he's 
just annoyed he got off the charges... But I accept that Mr Crouch's 
deep dislike of Bagman is not evidence in itself that he indeed was a 
DE, just an interesting side-note :-).

Another detail that's fishy is Bagman running away right after the 
third task of the Triwizard Tournament. Fred and George think Bagman 
had to run for it because the Goblins were chasing him (GoF p. 635 UK 
Ed). What they think is the reason and why he really ran might not be 
the same thing... What's a little odd is why Bagman didn't stay on 
for another five minutes, just to see whether the champions were 
okay. In the tumults and chaos that arouse when Harry and Cedric 
disappeared I'm sure Bagman would have been quite safe from the 
goblins (what would they have been doing inside Hogwarts grounds 
anyway? I don't recall any goblins being invited to watch the 
Tournament). He is not in the crowd hurrying over when Harry and 
Cedric reappear to check on them. He should have been the first one 
at the scene; he was after all, the one that arranged the whole 
Tournament. Ultimately, he was the one *responsible*.

What if Bagman didn't (only) run away from the goblins? What if HE is 
the DE mentioned by Voldemort, `too cowardly to return...' Ring any 
bells? Who acts like a coward during the whole of GoF, running away 
from his duties and obligations? Karkaroff is not the only one. Or, 
maybe the reason Bagman disappeared so suddenly from the third 
Triwizard task is that he hurried out of Hogwarts grounds and 
apparated to the side of Voldemort together with the other DE's... 
After all, several of the DE's present are not mentioned by name. 
Either way, whether Bagman was a DE and now regrets it, or still is a 
faithful DE, I believe there are enough canon evidence to suspect 
there's more to Bagman than meets the eye.

Lastly: The voice of Rowling represented by Hermione and Dumbledore 
is not conclusive; their words are pretty much open to interpretation:
Quote: "[Ron asking:]'Yeah, but Bagman didn't pass information on 
purpose, did he?'
Hermione *shrugged*." (GoF p. 527 UK Ed). And Dumbledore:
"`[Bagman]...has never been accused of any Dark activity *since*,' 
said Dumbledore calmly. (GoF p.524).

A lot of people, even his closest friends, thought a certain Peter 
Pettigrew was too dim to ever suspect him of becoming a DE, but he 
turned out to be "smart" enough, didn't he... Also, Bagman's round, 
innocent-looking eyes could be just as deceiving as Quirrel's feigned 
stammering and jumpiness. The only one not buying Quirrel's acting 
was Snape, as I recall... No one else questioned Quirrel's behaviour 
(Snape rocks!). And the only ones not buying Bagman's innocence were 
Rita Skeeter and Barty Crouch Sr..  In ordinary circumstances not the 
most reliable "judges of truth" perhaps, but still... I find it 
interesting, especially since "Rowling's voice", Hermione and 
Dumbledore, won't give us a straight answer...

Berit
http://home.no.net/berjakob/snape.html