Hogwarts Teachers - Lockhart (was History at Hogwarts) (was Re: Wizard Persecuti

[lupinlore]

No: HPFGUIDX 126284


--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "finwitch" <finwitch at y...> wrote:
> 
<SNIP>
> 
> Finwitch:
> 
> Well, I think this is a case of 'presume innocent' until proven 
> guilty. That is a very strong theme in the books, isn't it? As such, 
> Dumbledore is bound to trust the Dursleys... who ARE Harry's 
> relatives, and there's that ancient blood-protection to go with...
> 
> Yes, we get very much of the bad side of this principle in the 
> beginning of PS, but Harry's also being accused and sent to his 
> cupboard all along... AND the Snape/Quirrell-thing...
> 
> Then comes the CoS: Harry's wrongly accused by wizards... Harry's to 
> suspects: Malfoy and Hagrid, are proven innocent... (and Harry as 
> well).
> 
> PoA: Well, Sirius' wrongful imprisonment et al. is the BIG theme in 
> here...
> 
> GoF: Harry did NOT put his name into the Goblet...
> 
> OOP: Well, Harry's in the centre of accusations, particularly by 
> Umbridge...
> 
> Finwitch

I'm afraid I don't quite understand your point, Finwitch.  I'm not
trying to be snotty, just genuinely a little confused.  Do you mean
that DD was ignorant of abuse/trusted the Dursleys because of this
principle or (which is what I think you mean) that judgment on DD
should be suspended pending further info?  Or perhaps both?

Lupinlore