Statute of Secrecy

[ariston3344]

No: HPFGUIDX 106809

Hi, I'm new here (*wave*), and I'm sorry if this has come up before, 
but I couldn't find anything. Here's my latest nitpicky question: 
when Harry casts the Patronus in OotP to save himself and Dudley, 
why does the MoM make a big deal about the fact that he did this in 
front of a Muggle (Dudley)?  This is mentioned in the letter he gets 
from the MoM, and Fudge even goes out of his way to emphasize this 
at the hearing.

Ordinarily, of course, wizards aren't supposed to do magic in front 
of Muggles, but throughout the books there are exceptions for the 
immediate family of wizards.  Hermione's parents go to Diagon Alley, 
and Justin Finch-Fletchley's parents read his DADA schoolbooks.  
When Fred & George give Dudley the ton-tongue toffee, Mr. Weasley 
doesn't mention breach of secrecy when he scolds them; furthermore, 
he himself tried to come by Floo powder, and he uses magic to fix 
Dudley, and the Dursleys' living room, without apparently modifying 
their memories.  Hagrid similarly is not worried about breach of 
*secrecy* when he gives Dudley the pig's tail.  It seems clear all 
through the books that Vernon, Petunia, and Dudley know all about 
magic and the WW, even if they try to ignore it (unlike Marge, who 
is not in Harry's immediate family, and whose memory DOES get 
modified).

So since there must be an exception to the Statute of Secrecy for 
immediate family, why would the MoM bring up violation of secrecy as 
part of the charges against Harry?  And why is it not mentioned, as 
part of Harry's defense, that the only Muggle witness (Dudley) was 
in his immediate family?

If the *main* issue was that Harry was underage, that's fine as far 
as it goes... but then why bring up the fact that Dudley is a Muggle 
at all?  It just doesn't seem relevant.

Just a question that's been nagging me... small though it is. :)

-ariston