When did the Ministry know about Death Eaters and their Marks?

[earendil_fr]

No: HPFGUIDX 100170

Brenda wrote:
> I just have a question about something that has been bothering me 
for 
> a while.  It had occurred to me when I was re-reading Order of 
> Phoenix; it was a part where Hermione said that once the Ministry 
& 
> Daily Prophet believe Dumbledore wasn't so crazy, he will be able 
to 
> prove Sirius' innocence.. "Sirius hasn't got the Mark for one 
thing.."
> 
> And I remember the trials that took place in Dumbledore's 
Pensieve.. 
> Crouch Jr crying that he wasn't a Death Eater.. and Bagman 
denying.. 
> Crouch Sr seemed adamant and uptight.. I was thinking, the 
Ministry 
> could not have known about Death Eaters having the scar etched in 
> their arms, otherwise it would have been a much simpler matter to 
> distinguish the Death Eaters (wells, at least those who claimed 
that 
> they had no association, as for those who claimed that they were 
> under Imperius Curse, I don't know..).
> 
> But at the end of Goblet, when Snape showed Fudge his burnt Mark 
in 
> the hospital wing, Fudge didn't seem surprised in any ways - which 
> led me to believe that Ministry now knows about the DE's scar.  
Does 
> that mean the Ministry learned about it much after Voldemort's 
> downfall?  If they did acquire this much-more-accurate way of 
> distinguishing Death Eaters, why didn't they check Azkaban inmates 
to 
> make sure that they did have the right people in prison?
> 
> This bothers me particularly since Sirius could have been cleared, 
he 
> could have been FREE, and to top it all, he could have lived with 
> Harry..  I have an issue with wrongly-accused people not getting 
> enough compensation as they should, and when that kind of 
injustice 
> happens to my favorite character.. not a happy combo..

Earendil:

Putting aside the problem of the Dark Mark fading that Lee brought 
up in another post, and assuming that the Ministry knows about the 
existence of the Dark Mark...

The presence of the Dark Mark could be used to prove a connection to 
Deatheaters. But its absence can't prove somenone's innocence. It's 
likely that some unsuspected followers of LV don't bear the Mark. We 
know Deatheaters do. But what about the others? What about the less-
involved-but-still-supporting-LV ones?

In other words: the presence of the Dark Mark is a clue in favour of 
accusation. The absence of the Dark Mark is not a clue in favour of 
defense, but rather the absence of a clue that would be in favour of 
accusation.

Anyway, back to the example of Sirius, apart from the whole Potter & 
Fidelius issue, he was also convicted for Peter's murder. The facts 
indicated that he *had* killed Peter and a dozen of Muggles. Dark 
Mark or no Dark Mark, he would have been sent to Azkaban either way, 
though I'm convinced that a proper trial could have changed the 
outcome.

Earendil.