Who killed Quirrel? (Was: Re: Dept of Mysteries Veil Room)

[gelite67]

No: HPFGUIDX 114393

---> Angie wrote:
>  
> > I agree.  It seems to me we've got a little "overkill" with all 
> the deaths flying around.  
> 
> KathyK:
> 
> Aw, come on!  I don't want to hear any of that.  ;-) There's no 
> overkill.  In fact, we could do with a few more deaths.  Voldemort 
> is supposed to evil and scary.  He and his Death Eaters are meant 
to 
> wreak havoc and cause serious pain throughout the WW.  We have yet 
> to see this in the numbers their reputation demands. 
> 

Angie responds:  Oh, you're right in that we've only seen two deaths, 
but the whole idea of deaths, many deaths past and yet to come, 
permeate the story.  Still a lot of death for a children's story, 
anyway you slice it, seems to me.

> Angie wrote:
> 
> >And of course, Harry eventually will have to deal with the fact 
> that he will have to kill Voldemort.  I wonder why he doesn't ever 
> think about the fact that he killed Quirrell.<
> 
> KathyK:
> 
> Harry did not kill Quirrel.  Voldemort did.  When Harry lost 
> consciousness at the end of PS/SS Quirrel was still alive.  He was 
> in pain and blistered thanks to Harry's touch but alive just the 
> same.  
> 
> Voldemort says himself in GoF, Chapter 33 US ed pg 654:
> 
> "The servant died when I left his body, and I was left as weak as 
> ever I had been"
> 
> He possessed Quirrel and then left him to die (As Dumbledore also 
> mentions in PS/SS).  
> 
Angie responds:

Does "when" mean "because?"  Why would he die just because LV no 
longer possessed him?  I always thought the reason LV left Quirrell's 
body was because Quirrell was dying.  Hmm.  Thanks for clarifying.