[HPforGrownups] A fate worse than death ALIAS finale vs Book 7

[OctobersChild48 at aol.com]

No: HPFGUIDX 153035

In a message dated 5/27/06 6:35:13 AM Eastern Daylight Time, 
saberbunny at yahoo.ca writes:


> > Harry has already killed Quirrell, without splitting his soul, although 
> > that was luck.
> 
>   Sandy:
> I think you are confusing your mediums here. In the book Harry did not kill 
> Quirrel. Voldemort did.
> 
>    
>   Catherine again:
>   Well to quote Dumbledore, "Voldemort left Quirrel to die". So I guess 
> technically, neither Voldemort or Harry killed him outright. But did Quirrel die 
> because of what Harry did to him, because Voldemort left his body or a 
> combination of both? 
> Harry certainly had a part in his death. 
>    
>   Catherine
> 
>    
> 
>         
> 

Sandy:
In your original post you said Harry killed Quirrel which just simply is not 
true. You have the canon correct, Dumbledore did tell Harry that Voldemort 
left Quirrel to die. Canon does not, however, tell us exactly *how* Quirrel died, 
but it is your take that Harry played a part in his death. That is vastly 
different from having killed, but I am not convinced that Harry played a part in 
Quirrel's death, or at least is not responsible for it. Had Quirrel not been 
possessed by Voldemort Harry's touch would have had no effect on him at all. 
Furhermore, the burns that Harry inadvertantly inflicted upon Quirrel would not 
have been bad enough to kill him. Voldemort, and Voldemort alone, is 
responsible for Quirrel's death. It is what Voldemort does best, takes what he needs or 
wants and then kills. Seeing things the way you do then Harry also had a part 
in Cedric's death. Just because Harry was there and burned Quirrel in an 
effort to keep him from getting the stone does not mean he played a part in 
Quirrel's death, and he certainly did not kill, or try to kill.

Sandy


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]