Blood Protection

[dumbledore11214]

No: HPFGUIDX 159089

> > Alla:
> > 
> > And don't forget that Voldemort is the only character AFAIK that 
JKR 
> > officially called a liar so far, so yeah, I would tend to double 
and 
> > triple check for corroborating story before accepting his version 
of 
> > the events, IMO of course.
> >
> 
> Hickengruendler:
> 
> I already posted a reply to a_svirns post, which did not appear. 
Maybe 
> it will later, therefore I apologize if my statement appears twice. 
But 
> I must admit, I have a really hard time following this reasoning, 
> because isn't the fact, that Voldemort didn't attack Harry at 
Privet 
> Drive even after his return already a proof for his statement? He 
was 
> now back in full shape and full power, and yet neither him nor any 
of 
> his henchmen harmed Harry while he was around a Dursley in OotP or 
HBP. 
> The Dementors do not count, as their appereance was completely 
> unrelated from Vodlemort (as far as we know).
>

Alla:

Oh, but I was remarking specifically in response to Voldemort 
statement in GoF whether to take it on faith.

What you are saying **may be** true, but the stone that stops me is 
that we do not know whether Harry was not attacked because Voldemort 
could not, or because he had more grandier plans, if that makes sense?

Basically I am back to my initial standing - I want to see **failed** 
attack to be sure that indeed this blasted protection indeed works. 
Statement by Voldemort **could be** true, although I would say it 
make perfect sense for him to say the reasons that make him look 
better, not that he could not try without body, but that he could not 
because of such powerful protection.

JMO,

Alla