Blood Protection

[hickengruendler]

No: HPFGUIDX 159090

 
> 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?

Hickengruendler:

Yes, I see what you mean. But wouldn't killing Harry be pretty much 
near the top of his list of priorities? Well, maybe not in OotP, when 
he tried to learn the rest of the Prophecy. But at least after this 
eliminating Harry must have been of extreme importande for him. 
Instead he kills Madam Bones, crahes a few bridges and bewitches a 
muggle politician. 

> 
> 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.
 
Hickengruendler:

Won't happen, I fear. With the blood protection stopping to work now, 
the attack will probably pretty much work in causing harm. I fully 
expect a minor battle at the Dursleys at the beginning of book 7.