Copyediting Errors - Listed? (was:Voldemort killed personally?)

[justcarol67]

No: HPFGUIDX 157250

Mike wrote:
> <snip> We know he was sixteen when he killed Myrtle because he told
us he preserved his sixteen-year-old self in the diary. We can also
backtrack 50 years to arrive at Tom's fifth year at school. Where's
the evidence that Tom killed the Riddles *after* his fifth year?
><snip>

Carol earlier:
> > (He *isn't* wearing a ring in CoS, or surely the narrator would 
have mentioned it.) 
> 
Mike again:
> I would have thought so too. But *not* mentioning the ring is not
proof that he *didn't* have the ring. I'll even give you more fuel, 
check out CoS, p.243, Riddle in Dippet's office (memory scene):
> 
> "'Oh', said Riddle. He sat down, gripping his hands together very 
> tightly."
> 
> You would think if Tom had a ring on, we would have noticed it right 
> here. But, it still isn't proof that he *didn't* have it.

Carol again:
Exzctly. The narrator's failure to mention the ring isn't proof, but
if Harry notices the Prefect's badge, surely he'd notice the ring, as
he does in HBP. And surely the narrator would provide that piece of
information because it would be important later, like the reference in
SS/PS to "young Sirius Black's" flying motorcycle or the reference to
the unopenable locket in OoP or the references to the Hand of Glory
and the cursed necklace in CoS. The diary becomes the first Horcrux.
Surely the ring, the second Horcrux, would also be mentioned in CoS if
Tom had it already? (Granted, absence of evidence isn't proof, but we
know how JKR works, and the absence of the ring must surely mean that
he hadn't obtained it yet, just as the absence of a reference to the
death of his "filthy Muggle father" must surely mean that Tom placed
his memories in the diary before he had murdered the Riddles.) Of
course, logical deduction isn't proof. If the point were proven, we
wouldn't need to discuss it.

> > Carol again:
> > We do *not* have a canonical statement that the murders occurred 
before he killed Myrtle, 
> 
> Mike:
> Yes we do! We have DD's statement in HBP. 

Carol:
We do? Dumbledore says that Tom killed the Riddles before he killed
Myrtle? Quote, please? Or do you mean "in his sixteenth year," which
can't be used to prove its own validity? I'm arguing that "in his
sixteenth year" is probably an error for "when he was sixteen." What
I'm asking for is evidence that it really means "when he was fifteen,"
in which case it isn't an error and JKR isn't mathematically confused
in this instance.

Mike:
What we don't have is a canonical statement that the murders occurred
after Myrtle's. I read your post through three times, hoping to find
that piece of contradictory evidence. You just didn't have it.

Carol again:
If I could quote a statement that one occurred after the other, I
would do so and that would end the argument. Since I can't, nor can
you, I'm presenting a *reasoned argument* that the murders must have
occurred after the events in the diary. *If* I'm right, the "sixteenth
year" statement is just JKR not understanding that "in his sixteenth
year" is not synonymous with "sixteen." You yourself state that if it
weren't for that statement, you'd believe that the Riddles were killed
after Myrtle. You seem to be placing a higher value on one possibly
erroneous statement of Tom's age than on Tom's motives or logic or the
absence of evidence to support your point that "in his sixteenth year"
must be correct. You're also discounting all the other discrepancies
in numbers that I've presented and JKR's own statement that she's
abysmal at math.

I would appreciate your presenting any piece of evidence *other than*
the statement we're arguing about, which can't be used to prove
itself, or any reasoned argument in favor of the Riddle murders
occurring before Tom released the Basilisk. Can you provide one
plausible reason why Tom would have bothered trying to kill
"Mudbloods" using a Basilisk when he had already murdered three people
of personal importance to him using Avada Kedavra, a considerably
simpler procedure if you have the will and the power to do the spell?
Why would ridding the school of Muggleborns be important to him if he
was already thinking about Horcruxes, as evidenced by the conversation
with Slughorn?

Here's the logical sequence of events:
1. Tom opens the Chamber of Secrets.
2. The Basilisk, probably on his command, kills Myrtle.
3. Tom frames Hagrid.
4. Tom places the memory of his sixteen-year-old self in the diary so
that someone else can continue "Salazar Slytherin's noble work."
5. Tom kills his family over the summer break, frames Morfin, and
steal the ring.
6. Tom asks Slughorn about Horcruxes, clearly after the Riddle murders
because he's wearing the ring.
7. Tom makes the diary, already a "powerful magical object," and the
ring into Horcruxes.

Please convince me that items 5 through 7 could occur before items 1
through 4. I don't think it's plausible. Tom's focus changes with the
murder of the Riddles. The Chamber of Secrets no longer matters. All
he cares about at this point is Horcruxes.

Carol, who remains convinced that "in his sixteenth year" is an error
for "when he was sixteen" but is not calling anything canon except
Tom's age when he killed Myrtle