Dudley's Worst Memory

[johnbowman19]

No: HPFGUIDX 93096

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "luna_loco" <peckham at c...> 
wrote:
> I would like to throw out another wild theory about what terrified
> Dudley.  Dudley could be remembering an attack by Death Eaters on
> number 4 Privet Drive shortly after Harry's arrival.
> 
> In support of this possiblitly consider the following facts:
> 
> 1) Dumbledore has placed protections on Harry based on Lily's
> sacrafice and the bond of blood (OoP Ch 37).
> 
> 2) After Voldemort's fall, at least 4 Death Eaters resorted to
> violence in a search for Voldemort (As demonstarted by Neville's
> parents).  One of these DEs was Crouch Jr.
But we do not know if any others resorted to violence. What we do 
know is that the ones who did were caught. So it is reasonable to 
assume that a group od DE's who no longer have thier master would 
also be caught (unless they turned out like Malfoy). 
>
> 3) Voldemort knew of strong magical protection on Harry, while 
Harry
> is at Number 4, at the time of his rebirth.  Voldemort also knows 
that
> these protections involve an ancient magic (GoF Ch 33).
This is true Voldemort knew about the protections. But it is 
reasonable to assume that and intelligent wizard like Voldemort 
could deduce that DD would not leave HArry unprotected in his aunt's 
house. And since Voldemort spent the better part of 14 years without 
a body, coupled with the fact that Voldemort had to will himself 
into existence without sleep, we can also assume that Voldemort had 
alot of time to think sans body. 14 years of thought for and 
intelligent person will lead to accurate statements. Voldemort also 
says in the Graveyard scene that he should have known about the 
magic that saved Harry. This means that he knew of the ancient magic 
but ignored it to his error. So if Voldemort knows some ancient 
magic already (how Harry survived) it is logical to assume that he 
knows of other forms of ancient magic. Plus there is the fact that 
even DD thinks that Voldemort has the most extensive knowledge of 
magic of any wizard alive. If Voldemort knows magic the best he 
should know possible countermeasures for protection.
> 
> 4) Dudley refers to Harry's wand as a "thing" and claims he heard
> "things" during the dementor attack (OoP Ch 2).
The word "thing" is ambiguous at best. "thing" is a noun and as such 
it can refer person, places, objects, or ideas. Although it is 
usually limited to objects and ideas. So if dudley called HArry's 
wand the same word he used to describe the images he saw in his mind 
what does that imply? One can infer from your use of the 
word "thing" that dudley saw wands in his head. But when dementors 
attack images are not presented. Only sounds are given in texts. So 
how does one hear a wand? there are to many noises a wand can make, 
and there is the fact that Harry did not use his wand so Dudley 
could not hear harry's wand. 
> 5) Being told of Voldemort's return caused a reaction of fear in 
Aunt
> Petunia (OoP Ch 2).
There is another logical explination for why Petunia felt fear. And 
that is because her sister was murdered by Voldemort. And the years 
that her sister went to Hogwarts were also the years that Voldemort 
came to power. So if Petunia knows about dementors from a 
conversation she overheard from her sister couldn't Petunia have 
heard Voldemorts name in another conersation? (also we can assume 
that Lily used Voldemort's name because peers of james and lily use 
his name). 
> 
> 6) Dementor attacks can cause the victim to relive events from 
early
> childhood (as shown by Harry's experiences in PoA)
Again I do not recall in the canon where the subjects of dementor 
attacks "relive" thier worst memories, they victims merely hear them 
as in Harry's case. (true Harry may have been too young to recall 
images when his worst memory happened, but We do not know what 
happens when another person is attacked. 
> 
> From these facts, the following can be logically derived:
> 
> 7) As Dumbledore is not likely to talked to many people about the
> protections he placed on Harry, something had to have happened for
> Voldemort to know about the strength and nature of the protections 
on
> Harry.  
> 
I assume that the protections placed on Harry are ancient magic and 
as such only the most knowledgeable wizards would know about the 
possible protections. Also there is another incident that could help 
to explain Voldemort's knowledge of Harry's protection and that is 
when Harry fights Quirrel. Voldemort would have seen what happened 
to Quirrel and could then use his next 3 years trying and succeeding 
in understanding the nature and strength of Harry's protections. 
> 8)Voldemort would not have been able to do any reconnaissance by
> himself before getting his body back.
Again DD said that Voldemort knows magic the best of an wizard 
alive. If he knows magic the best then he should know what DD knows 
about ancient magic too because Voldemort being the best would knoe 
what the 2nd best would know, plus some. 
> 
> 9) Dudley's reference to Harry's wand as a "thing" indicates a 
trend
> to describe anything considered unusual in vague and ambiguos 
terms. 
> A magical attack would definately be considered unusual by the
> Dursleys.
No the word "thing" is used to describe something he does not 
understand. You use the word "thing" when you do not know the proper 
word to use. You do not use the word "thing" when describing a near 
death encounter. instead some possible words Dudley would use to 
describe the attack you say happened are "the attack' or "those men" 
or how about "the wierdos"?  
> 10) Harry's protection being based on the bond of blood may also
> extend to protect Petunia and Dudley to some extent.
Yes I believe that JKR said in her most recent interview that the 
protection is a 2 way thing.
> An attack by Death Eaters does not appear to conflict with anything
> that is known and can help explain a number of things.  The attack
> would likely have occured while Uncle Vernon was out of the house. 
> Such an attack would undoubtedly be terrifing to the victims.  The
> protection provided by Harry's presence would have foiled the 
attack
> and caused the attackers to retreat.
I feel and attack would contradict cannon. If dudely can remeber the 
attack why cannot Harry? If there was an attack why did Petunia not 
tell her husband or call the police? If there was an attack why not 
attack Harry again when he is alone and out of the house? The DEs 
have not attack and i feel the reason is because the DE's and 
Voldemort do not really know where Privet dr is. One of the 
protections Voldemort placed on Harry could have made the house 
unplottable. Also Voldemort never says Privet drive when refering to 
Harry's blood relative. He only says that he knows DD put Harry with 
Harry's blood relative which would be necessary to envoke the 
ancient magic that Voldemort and DD oth understand.  

> If such an attack actually occured then it would provide a Death 
Eater
> with knowledge of the protections that were placed on Harry and a 
set
> of memories that would cause fear in both Petunia and Dudley.  
Such an
> attack would also not be worse than Voldemort's first attack on 
Harry,
> and would thus not be Harry's worst experience.  Uncle Vernon's 
lack
> of fear when he was told of Voldemort's return would indicate he 
was
> not present for the alledged attack.
Based on the premises you have given there are too many holes in my 
eyes to say an attack happened. Usually when we try to deduce 
something logically it is when we have more facts and history, not 
merely and 15 year old boy's story. And I think that if Petunia and 
Dudley were attack it would be very hard to keep and spoiled brat 
like Dudley's mouth shut. And Dudley would even be eager to 
blackmail his Mom for more presents with this knowledge of an 
attack. It would have been too big of a scandel to cover up. Plus 
there is the fact that we know the MOM has been keeping a very close 
eye on Privet drive so if any DE's did show up it is unlikely that 
they would have time to attack because of how fast the MOM can 
respond to a simple over charm. 
> 
> Rebutals to this theory are welcome.
I hope I have given enough evidence and logic to rbute your theory, 
but if not just point out where i was wrong, and i will try to 
correct it. And i do feel that maybe this is a possibility but a 15 
year olds story is not enough background to come to logical concrete 
conclusions. 

John who likes logic