Cedric and Pettigrew (was Re: Faking Sirius' Death?)

[naamagatus]

No: HPFGUIDX 91741

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "pippin_999" <foxmoth at q...> 
wrote:
<snip> 
> Now I agree, Peter is not quite the fool everyone takes him for. 
> He knows that as soon as he's played out his part, he's toast.  
> He's been told to let Black catch up with him in a crowded place, 
> shout "Lily and James, how could you?" and kill Black. Little 
> Peter, the hero, Order of Merlin, first class.  But he guesses the 
> real plan will be for someone to make it look like Black killed 
> *him*. Peter foils the plan by cutting off his finger (he could 
have 
> done that *before* he let Black catch up with him) and 
> transforming into a rat. The curse which was intended to destroy 
> him misses and disposes of twelve unfortunate Muggles 
> instead.
> 
> Sirius thinks Peter did it, holding a wand behind his back. But 
> that means Sirius couldn't have seen it. According to the Muggle 
> witnesses, Peter never got his wand out at all. So once again a 
> curse comes out of nowhere. We must consider the possibility of 
> another wandsman, or perhaps someone who is skilled enough 
> to fire a curse without using a wand at all.

Hmmmmm .... The whole point of an explosive curse is that it makes 
not finding Peter's body reasonable. That's why Peter cut off his 
finger, to leave a body part behind that makes his exploding to 
little bits credible. But if he did that, then he was acting on the 
assumption that he was faking his own death - not avoiding being 
killed by a DE. And vice versa, if the explosive curse was cast by 
somebody else, intending to kill Peter, why an explosive curse in the 
first place? Why not AK? There is a combination of details here - 
cutting off a finger, making an explosion, accusing Sirius in public -
 that all *together* make Peter's death credible. 

Another point. If Peter's death was necessary to prevent his telling 
the identitiy of the second, more important, double agent, an 
immediate corollary is that Peter knows his identity. Since you 
obviously mean the second double agent as Lupin, why didn't Peter 
confront Lupin with this in the Shrieking Shack? Once Lupin had 
returned the wands to the trio, why didn't he accuse Lupin of 
betraying the Potters, telling everything he knows, in the hope of 
turning the kids and Sirius against Lupin? 

> 
> Now the DE's in Azkaban know that Sirius didn't betray the 
> Potters. They know that Sirius wasn't one of them, and Voldemort 
> never taught him any tricks, like how to kill twelve people with 
> one spell. So how can they be sure Peter's dead--unless one of 
> their own did it? 

There is absolutely no evidence that Voldemort and his followers were 
the only ones who could cast such curses. The Aurors, for instance, 
were using Unforgivables on DEs, so there is no reason for the DEs 
themselves to think that Sirius couldn't use powerful curses. 

> 
> Pippin:
<snip> 
> The consensus on the list was that priori incantatem will be 
> referred to again, and it will  be important for it to operate as 
> originally described. And of course JKR said there was a huge 
> clue on that page. It wasn't the James Lily swap. So what was it?

I've never heard of that. Really? That's *very* interesting. Do you 
have the link to the interview?

 
> Pippin:
> Harry can only see what's directly in front of him. If I was 
> Voldemort, I'd want  somebody on Pettigrew like ugly on a Troll 
> until the rebirthing spell was completed and Pettigrew's job was 
> done.  My theory is that once Voldemort was safely in the 
> cauldron, our stealthy second wandsman darted in  and put  the 
> wand in the pocket. As you say, it had to get there sometime.  
> According to your theory Peter would have to pick up the robes 
> with one hand, and with the same hand, manage to get the wand 
> into the pocket unnoticed. Quite a feat! 

I don't quite get this - Harry was meant to be well and dead - 
whether Voldemort resurrection succeeded or not. Why the secrecy, 
then?


Naama