The Dursleys *are* guilty (was : On the other hand )

[catalyna_99]

No: HPFGUIDX 93255

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Doriane" <delwynmarch at y...> 
wrote:
 
> 
> Del :
> Okay, I've been suspected several times already of trying to 
absolve 
> the Dursleys by putting the guilt on everyone else. So let's be 
> clear : that's NOT what I'm trying to do. I'm trying to add guilt 
on 
> other people who are partly responsible for the Dursleys' 
> *continuous* abuse of Harry. If DD had popped up next to Dudley 
the 
> first time he hit Harry, or next to Petunia when she didn't give 
him 
> enough to eat, or next to Vernon when he gave Harry one of 
Dudley's 
> discarded clothes, I'm pretty sure they wouldn't have done it 
> *again* !
> 
> Del

Just popping in after a looooong sabbatical and returning to 
lurkdom.  Have to add thoughts before they leave.

First, I think DD was trying not to interfere because not drawing 
attention to Harry was the best protection to insure he could grow 
up. If he continuously popped in or sent howlers to the Dursley's 
before Harry's eleventh birthday, it would definitely sent alarms 
off to where Harry was.  As someone pointed out, maybe the best 
place was the ONLY place and being abused by the Dursley's was 
certainly better than being dead by the DE.  He had no contact with 
the wizarding world until his eleventh birthday except by a few 
wizards that might have recognized him on his few outings.

Second, why no muggle agency had come calling after the signs of 
abuse?  Maybe that was the protective spell working too well. I 
mean, people actually believed the outlandish lies the Dursley's 
told too well.  I can picture someone from social services or the 
police coming all het up for answers at the Dursley's. Then the 
charm takes affect, and then, it's "Oh you poor people. Yes we 
understand he's totally incorrigible. Sorry to bothee you."


Cat