Bagman as Loyal Death Eater and Big Blond

[M.Clifford]

No: HPFGUIDX 141578


> Carol:
> > 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." 
> 
> Goddlefrood replies:
> I can only speculate on this and say that the chair may act in the 
> manner you describe. Or perhaps it is itself a loyal Quidditch fan?
> Or even perhaps it can be fooled like other dark detectors, if it is 
> indeed one.

Valky:
I would argue that the rattling chains support Goddlefrood's
theoretical DE Bagman, much rather than counter it.

If I understand you correctly Goodlefrood, (cute name BTW), you have
implied that Bagman employs his Wimbourne Wasps Beater specialty in
battle, which goes to the BBDE's curses bouncing around the room and
hitting from behind in a spectacular way. If that is the case, there
*is* a stray spell in the hallway battle, that Harry supposes comes
from the BBDE and hits another DE (I think you entioned that). 

I would say, that the rattling chains indicate Bagman is certainly
*partially* guilty of the crime he is on trial for, if indeed that is
what they do (and I tend to agree with Carol, that is what they do).
In which case other misdeeds such as cheating on his bets, which we
*don't know* was happening during VWI, might not have anything to do
with the guilt that is implied in the pensieve. Bagman is on trial for
aiding Death Eaters, and the chains rattle ominously as though they
*want* to lock him up for something, but he's up on the wrong charge,
so they can't. The charge he should be up on, in that case *could* be
that he was a Death Eater but one that doesn't necessarily always *aid
them*. All befitting of an ex-beater who 'accidentally' knocks
out/kills his so called cohorts in battle.

It's my read of Bagman that he mainly likes getting rich, however it
might be accomplished. So, being among the DE's for the paycheck, but
not adverse to using DE activities to knock out someone else so a
larger slice of the pie will go to him, <g> are characteristics that
do fit Bagman, and they do fit the BBDE's behaviour. He didn't kill
anyone in Hagrids Hut, except the poor innocent Bowtruckles.

In any case, thanks Goddlefrood for the excellent outside the square
theory, I am looking forward to reading the others you've promised. 

Valky