either must die at the hand of the other, Contradiction or Clue?

[P J]

No: HPFGUIDX 139755

Valky:
>I think this is actually a really pertinient issue Saraquel.
>Dumbledore obviously does not believe that Harry committed a 
>murder with that Basilisk tooth, but if he destroyed a man's 
>soul, then what is the difference?


The way I understood it from reading the books is if you kill a 
person whose body contains a full soul, even if that soul is 
tattered and torn by murder or general bad deeds, then that would 
be considered murder.  However, if you destroy a _fragment_  of 
soul purposely set into a book, cup, ring, etc., it's not 
considered murder since the "killer" is not destroying the entire 
soul or the body it used to inhabit.  I believe this is the 
loophole DD cites when he says that Harry, despite having 
destroyed the diary, has a whole soul.

If these fragments can't feel each other (DD says LV doesn't know 
when the diary has been destroyed till told) then they're 
effectively dead to start with.  I've been thinking of them as 
living a half life/a cursed life similar to when LV drank the 
Unicorn blood.

Just my opinion.  :)

PJ