[HPforGrownups] Moaning Myrtle's murder (Was: Harry a Horcrux?)

[Kathryn Jones]

No: HPFGUIDX 153925

Kathrin P wrote:

> Kathrin now:
> 
> As a law student I couldn't hold myself back from taking a closer look on
> this 'case' ;-) Of course, since I do not have the book with me I had to
> work with what my memory provided me with, so tell me when I assume a wrong
> 'fact'. Also, please remember that I'm German, so everything I say is based
> on German law!

   KJ writes:

    Excellent presentation. I, however, must disagree, based on 
experience in Canadian law as an RCM Police constable, and canon in the 
books.

I believe that the evidence would be presented as follows:

1.	While we know that Tom did indeed release the basilisk, we are not 
told of his actual intentions. We have only the remark that he intended 
to continue Salazar's great work as a fifty-year old memory of himself. 
As Salazar accomplished many other things besides murdering students, 
this would be insufficient to prove intent. We don't know if he actually 
released the snake or simply opened the tunnel to bond with the thing.

2.	We know that Tom was speaking to the basilisk when he opened the 
tunnel to the chamber, but we do not know what he said. No one else 
understands parseltongue. It could not be proven in court that Tom had 
actually issued instructions to the snake to murder Muggleborn students. 
He might have been offering it dinner.

3.	Myrtle, herself, says that she heard a voice and opened the stall 
door to tell Tom to go away.  All she saw when she opened the door was a 
pair of yellow eyes. Looking into its eyes killed her. There is nothing 
to prove that the snake was attacking Myrtle. If the basilisk turned to 
look at the sound of the door opening, the same thing would have occurred.

4.	As the snake kills as a result of simply existing, and assuming that 
Tom knew that, he could possibly be found guilty of criminal negligence 
causing death. It would also be difficult to prove that he knew that, 
prior to the death of Myrtle because, for some reason, Tom could deal 
with it without being killed. He would be able to testify that as 
nothing untoward happened to him, he could not be expected to realize 
that it would happen to anyone else. I'm rather curious as to why he 
could look at it and associate with it and not be killed. Flint?

5.	Following the whole episode, he again confined the snake so that it 
could not happen again. He may have had his own reasons for doing so, 
but we are only interested in the presentation of the bald truth and not 
supposition.

6.	Finally, there were no living witnesses to even suggest that Tom was 
anywhere in the vicinity of the basilisk when it all happened. Myrtle 
could not identify the person in the bathroom, assuming that a ghost 
would be allowed to testify. Her statements would only prove that an 
unidentified male was talking in the bathroom. All she saw were two 
eyes. She could not even definitely state that she was looking at a 
basilisk.

	I would not want to prosecute this one!

KJ