Bagman as Loyal Death Eater and Big Blond

[justcarol67]

No: HPFGUIDX 141552

Carol earlier:
> 
> > Are you sure about this (Bagman being a DE)? ... He gets off the 
> charge by claiming that he didn't know that his father's old pal 
> Rookwood was a Death Eater.
> 
> Goddlefrood responded:
> 
> I am currently persuaded, due to matters pointed out in my article 
> that Bagman is a DE. I am, of course, as all theorists should be, 
> open to contrary persuasion.

Carol again:
Evidently you're not, as I pointed out that he wasn't charged with
being a Death Eater, only with aiding one, and you snipped that point.
And I answered the other points in your post, stating that they can
all be read as red herrings misleading us into believing that he put
Harry's name in the Goblet of Fire. What evidence do you have that has
not already been answered in GoF itself with the explanation that he's
in debt to the goblins? I'm not persuaded that we should reject that
explanation.
> 
Carol earlier:
> 
> > The chains on his chair rattle ominously but don't bind him... If
the chair magically knows who is guilty and who isn't (it doesn't bind
Harry during *his* trial in OoP), then he's telling the truth.
> 
> Goddlefrood responds:
> 
> What makes you think the chair is aware of guilt or otherwise. 
> Anyway Bagman could be more skilled than we have so far been led to 
> believe.

Carol again:
The chains bind the people we know are guilty of being Death Eaters:
Karkaroff, the Lestranges (Bellatrix, Rodolphus, and Rabastan), and
the fear-filled boy, Barty Crouch Jr. They don't bind Bagman; they
only rattle ominously, suggesting that his crime, if any, is minor.
And in Harry's case, they don't even rattle. So, yes, I think the
chair can magically sense guilt, and I see no evidence that Bagman is
skilled at anything other than Quidditch and "commentating." Barty Jr.
we know to be a powerful wizard, and he is reduced to helplessness in
that same situation. Bludgers to the head making Bagman "a bit of an
idiot" (if he wasn't one already)? Do you have any canon evidence of
his intelligence or power? I don't recall his casting any spell other
than Sonorus. He could be a one-spell wonder like Lockhart.
 
> Goddlefrood: 
> That Bagman was a Beater is suggestive of his size. Beaters are
indicated to be rather burlier than other Quidditch players, thus
leading me to suspect that Bagman is a large man, that is apart from
the other supporting quotes in my article.

Carol:
I'm not disputing that Bagman is a large man, or that he's blond.
Obviously, he's both. I just don't think that's sufficient evidence
for concluding that he's the same person as the Big Blond Death Eater.
I have no doubt that there are many large blond wizards in the UK.
It's like saying: Carol is skinny and wears thick glasses that magnify
her eyes (true statement). She must be the same person as Professor
Trelawney. (Shh! Don't reveal my secret!) Seriously, the BBDE could as
easily be Sturgis Podmore, who is also blond and should be out of
prison by now, but we haven't heard a word about him.
>  
Carol earlier:
> > From the standpoint of GoF as a detective novel (who put Harry's
name in the cup?), Bagman is one of the suspects who are conveniently
gathered for us in "The Four Champions"
> 
> Goddlefrood:
> If it accepted as a detective novel, and it has many of those 
traits, then you have a valid point. It is not entirely a detective
novel, however, it is in fact part of an ongoing saga and I do not
think it is unfair to take more out of it than first glimpsed, as I
have done, and apply that to the continuing story.

Carol again:
I'll grant you that detective story is one of several genres that JKR
employs, others being the heroic epic and the bildungsroman. Certainly
some characters, for example Wormtail and Snape, are part of the
continuing story, and it's possible that Bagman is as well. But the
characters we know to be important to the continuing story were
introduced in the first book, with hints in the case of Scabbers of
what was to come (though we didn't recognize them as foreshadowing at
the time). Even Sirius Black, who dies in Book 5, is first mentioned
in Book 1. But Ludo Bagman, IIRC, first appears in GoF and has
disappeared from the story. I expect that we'll hear what became of
him, just as we did with Karkaroff, but I see no evidence so far of
his importance outside the detective story element of GoF.
>
<snip minor points> 

Carol earlier:
Why wasn't he in the graveyard and why haven't we heard from him since?
> 
> Goddlefrood: 
> Who says he was not in the graveyard? This point is far from proven.
I do not accept that we are aware who was actually present in the
graveyard as certain others have said. Snape in "Spinner's End"
mentions Yaxley, the Carrows, Greyback and Rookwood, later we meet
Gibbon (when dead admittedly). None of these, except possibly
Rookwood, are referred to in the graveyard scene. This is suggestive
that several DEs were present who have not yet been indentified, and
may never be.
>
Carol again:
Yes, I conceded the point that there are unidentified DEs in the
graveyard but you snipped my concession. As you note yourself, we've
found out the names of about half a dozen of these people. But
Bagman's name has not come up. Granted, there's no proof that he
wasn't in the graveyard, but there's no evidence whatever that he was.
   
Carol earlier:
> > And none of the DEs present showed up late and out of breath as
Bagman would have had to do if he ran from the Quidditch Field to get
his cloak and mask and then ran to Hogsmeade to apparate.
> 
> Goddlefrood: 
> As you yourself point out, Bagman was a sportsman. The gates of 
> Hogwarts are the boundary and according to JKR's map are not far 
> from the Quidditich pitch. Apparition is not shown to be an energy 
> sapping process. Bagman disappeared after the third task, but it 
> would be at lease half an hour or an hour before the DEs appeared in 
> the graveyard. (Voldemort being reborn and talking to Harry before 
> their arrival for instance).

Carol responds:
Snape knows exactly at what point Voldemort summons the DEs to the
graveyard. So does Karkaroff, who runs away at exactly that point.
Surely Snape or Crouch Jr. under Veritaserum would have remarked about
Bagman's disappearance if it had occurred at exactly that time. But
Bagman thought that he had won his bet (that Harry would win the
tournament). It's only after he meets with the goblins, who tell him
that the TWT ended in a draw and he's lost the bet that he disappears.

And the DEs don't take half an hour to arrive after they're summoned,
which occurs *after* Wormtail has restored Voldemort to his
adult-sized body. Voldemort touches the mark on Wormtail's arm and
says, "How many will be brave enough to return when they feel it? And
how many will be foolish enough to stay away?" He paces "for a minute
or so," speaks a few words to Harry, paces again, speaks a few more
words, then they appear, hooded and masked, all at about the same time
(GoF  Am. ed. 646). But Bagman would have had to rush from the stadium
with all eyes on him (like the coward Karkaroff, who fears the revenge
of the DEs so much that he doesn't care who sees him), run and get a
cloak and mask (did he keep one at Hogwarts, just in case? I doubt
it), run to Hogsmeade (you can't Apparate from Hogwarts or its
grounds), and show up late (as no one does). Or show up in his
Wimbourne Wasp robes, as he obviously didn't do. And then surely he
would have reappeared at some point, explaining his sudden departure,
and resumed his role as head of Magical Sports and Games, just as
Lucius Malfoy and the other DEs return to their normal lives. The debt
to the goblins gives a very good reason for him to run away. Appearing
at the graveyard (assuming that he could manage it) doesn't.
>
> Goddlefrood: 
> Not if you read the text closely and have some suspicion that the 
BBDE is not all bad as I do.

Carol:
Not all bad? He unquestionably sets fire to Hagrid's house (602) and
he apparently Crucios Harry (603). And believe me, I've read the text
closely. It's an obsession I'm sure you're familiar with.
> 
Goddlefrood:
> Of course you may be correct that Bagman is being held by goblins.
This may or may not have come to Bill's attention, goblins are after
all a secretive lot.

Carol:
Or he might still be hiding from them. But if the Twins know why
Bagman ran away (they explain it to Harry, GoF 731-32), then surely
Bill does, too. I do expect to hear from Bill in connection with the
Goblin Liason Office (he names a specific goblin, Rudbag or something
that sounds like an Orc from LOTR in OoP--sorry I can't find the page
number). So we'll probably hear from Bill regarding Bagman, too. (One
more loose end to wrap up, like the death of Karkaroff mentioned in
passing in HBP.) Meanwhile, I accept George's judgment that Bagman is
a "stupid git" who "wouldn't have the brains" to be involved in the
TWT kidnap plot (731).
> 
Goddlefrood:
> Toodle pip

Carol:
Ah, you must be British! We Americans don't have any equivalent
(unborrowed) expressions that I can think of, sad, colorless lot that
we are.

Carol, expecting to be proven wrong on that last point at OT Chatter