Riddle solved - congrats Renee!

[Brent]

No: HPFGUIDX 129756

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "tinglinger" <tinglinger at y...> 
wrote:
> tinglinger
> =============
> If no one else was at Godric's Hollow to witness the alleged
> events that occurred there, then JKR violated the Omnipotent
> Observer rule of writing (i.e. a story must be verifiable in
> order to have validity.) 
> SO........... what does all this tell me ?
> SOMEONE ELSE was at Godric's Hollow at the time Harry's
> parents were murdered.
> As for who .... 
> 
> bboyminn:
> ============ 
> <snip>
> But I think their is a slight flaw in the reasoning in your
> thougths on the riddle and on the 'Omnipotent Observer'.
> First, isn't it the  /omniscient/ observer; or the 'third 
> person omniscient narrator'.
> 'Omnipotent' means all-powerful; 'omniscient' mean all-knowing. 
> 
> tinglinger -- I agree! Mea culpa should have said
> Omniscient Observer as you suggested.
> 
> bboyminn
> ==============
> In the Riddle, there is one person who knows the entire story,
> and that person is the dead man. The riddle could be related to
> us by the all-knowing ethereal spirit of the dead man; as a man,
> he knows the dream, and as a ghost, he know the events outside
> himself. Therefore, he is able to relate the complete event to
> us. In this sense, the ghost of the man is quite capable of
> being the omniscient narrator.
> 
> tinglinger
> =============
> I would agree with your argument if the Riddle was a ghost story.
> There was no indication from the telling that it was, so it might
> be a bit of a reach to make that assumption. Btw, I believe that
> this Riddle originally appeared in the Reader's Digest many many
> years ago. 
> 
> 
> bboyminn
> ===========
> As far as the events at Godric's Hollow, have you ever watched
> the TV show 'C.S.I.' (Crime Scene Investigation). It's their
> job to know what happened during a crime even when there are
> no witnesses to recount the events. The clues and evidence at
> the scene can lead them to very sound and reasonable
> conclusions.
> The question of how anyone could know what happened at Godrics
> Hollow come up before, I think at bare minimum, Dumbledore and
> the Order examined the crime scene and were able to reach
> certain logical, though perhaps not absolutely provable,
> conclusion. From the clues, they were able to reconstruct a
> reasonable account of the events. 
> Of course, from the many discussions of this, the idea that
> someone else was there has grown stronger and stronger. I
> would say that it has grown to the point where it is generally
> accepted. The most likely candidate so far is Peter. However,
> if Peter was there, he would not likely have recounted the
> events to Dumbledore. There is some chance that, directly or
> indirectly, Peter may have recounted the events to Snape who
> in turn informed Dumbledore. 
> 
> tinglinger
> ============
> Dumbledore and the Order could have figured out what happened
> but, unless there was a pensieve recording Lily's words when
> she made her sacrifice, how do we know what she did or
> whether Voldemort indeed said "You don't have to die!"
> I assume that CSI examines "physical" evidence that is
> uncovered at the scene.
> 
> bboyminn
> ===========
> So, again, I'm not trying to be a spoil-sport. The answer to
> the riddle is the answer to the riddle. It's easy, after the
> fact, to come up with rationalized alternative scenarios. 
> As a side note, I would like to point out that there is a
> huge difference between 'rational' and 'rationalize'. Don't
> know if it's worth anything, but there it is. 
> 
> tinglinger
> ==============
> I always look forward to the comments of any poster who
> presents a point of view rather than a guess. We can always
> agree or disagree on the interpretation of events. That's
>  what makes these groups interesting and fun!
> 
> tinglinger
> ================
> who always likes a good discussion and glad that this one is
> moving along quite nicely...
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/potterplots
> for more theories and friendly discussions


What if DD used a time turner to observe the events without 
interfering as is the rule.  Maybe he has some guilt from the fact 
he didn't stop this from happening for it must.  He would have seen 
that LV didn't die.  I have long believed that DD appears to be all 
knowing because he goes back to watch events to see how they 
happened.  

Brent