Why Veritaserum & Priori Incantatum

[Steve]

No: HPFGUIDX 128977

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "justcarol67" <justcarol67 at y...>
wrote:

> 
> 
> Carol responds:
> What about performing Priori Incantatem on Sirius Black's wand 
> (which must have been taken directly from his own hand when he was 
> arrested)? Wouldn't that be less subject to abuse than veritaserum 
> or legilimency? ...edited...
> 
> Carol, who does think JKR is just covering her tracks regarding
> veritaserum but has no way of supporting that opinion and 
> consequently won't pursue the subject

bboyminn:

Regarding Priori Incantatum, there is a lot of data we don't have, so
it's difficult to speak with any authority. For example, when you
recall a spell from a wand does that act delete it from the wand? In
the example of Harry's wand being used to cast the Dark Mark, could
Amos Diggory recall that last spell several times, or once he recalled
it, was it then gone from the wand? I lean toward recalled spells
being deleted, but, of course, we really don't know. If recalled
spells are deleted, then that creates a way for a wizard to erase his
wand. 

Further, as in Harry's case, we know which wand cast the spell, but we
don't know which wizard was holding the wand when the spell was cast,
so wand recall is not absolute indesputable evidence. If we transfer
this to the real world, we may be able to establish that a specific
person's gun killed another person, and we may be able, as we would
assume, to establish that the specific person handled the gun, but
unless we can put the gun in his hand at the moment of the crime, we
really don't have very strong evidence.

In Sirius's case, I think the circumstances were so obvious and the
eagerness to convict was so extreme, that no one saw any need for
confirming evidence. The circumstances themselves seemed to be
evidence enough. 

As to your last point about JKR trying to bluff her way through an
explanation of the nature of Veritaserum, I don't think so. Her
explanation is essential the exact same explanation for why we don't
use various 'truth devices' in the real world. Some people can 'beat
the box', that is, beat a lie detector machine. Well trained spies can
overcome 'truth serums'. Further, truth is matter of opinion, not an
absolute. By Fudge's own statement if the person under the influence
of Veritaserum believes something is true, then he will speak it as
truth, even when others know the statement to be absurdly false. 

A good example is Harry in POA, if you asked him in the middle of the
book if Sirius Black killed his parents, he would have said with
absolute certainty 'YES', if you asked him again at the end of the
book, he would have said with absolute certainty 'NO'. 

If you asked Sirius Black if he was responsible for James and Lily's
deaths, he would have said 'Yes', but there is a very specific context
to that 'yes'. 'Yes' in that he /felt/ responsible, but absolutely
'no' in his being legally responsible.

So, I feel that JKR explanation is probably consistent with her
original conception of Veritaserum. Especially since her explanation
is consistent with the real world. Magic and it's associated artifacts
are not perfect and absolute, and rightly so; she has set definite
limits and boundaries in her world.

Just a thought.

Steve/bboyminn