Statute of Secrecy

[Tammy Rizzo]

No: HPFGUIDX 106885

Ariston writes:

<snip>
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?
<snip>

Now I (Tammy) reply:

That's a very good question, isn't it?  If it were anyone BUT Harry Potter, that would be an extremely good question.  Why would the MOM bother with someone performing magic in front of immediate Muggle family who already knew about the WW?  There'd be no reason to, you're absolutely right, Ariston.  However, the whole thing with Harry here is that Fudge was after him to discredit him, to get him out of sight, out of mind, out of the awareness of the WW, because Harry just wouldn't shut up about Voldythingy being back.  If it takes a 'fair trial followed by a real nice hanging' to get what Fudge needs, then so be it.  He wasn't out for truth or justice, he just wanted Harry out of the way.  He'd made that so clear to his fellows that Umbridge acted on her own to assure that Harry would be out of Cornelius' hair -- forever.  Makes me wonder if she's got a picture of Fudge at her bedside or something . . . smeared with pink lipstick . . . eurgh.  *shudder*

-- 

***
Tammy Rizzo
ms-tamany at rcn.com