[HPforGrownups] Re: Blood Protection/Dumbledore and Harry

[Jordan Abel]

No: HPFGUIDX 158595

Leah:
> Leah:  So it's not alright for DD to place a child in the safest
> place that very wise person can think of, however otherwise
> imperfect it is, but it is perfectly Ok for him to kidnap one muggle
> and kill off another who is rather inconvenient? This is DD making
> the arrangements, not Voldemort.

Random832:
I think there's a lot that DD is capable of if he believes it's "for
the greater good"

> Leah: We don't know that, because we don't know how the
> wizarding
> legal system operates.  Even in the muggle world, it would be
> possible for others, the state or other family members to challenge
> arrangements for guardianship, if these were felt to be unsuitable.
> And perhaps James and Lily would have agreed with DD if they had
> known the full situation.

Random832:
But we have no reason to think that there was any process beyond
"sirius was thrown in azkaban with no trial, so the fact that maybe
that wouldn't have happened if he'd gotten harry is water under the
bridge - he's obviously guilty anyway so it's a good thing DD did
that. Let's offer to make him MoM again."

Leah:
>  A will is an imperfect document made in
> circumstances known to the testator at the time.  If I'd appointed
> X guardian of my children and X then murdered me, I might have a
> fleeting moment of regret for my appointment.

Random832:
I think that it's very likely that they would _not_ have had the
secret keeper in their will at all, because if anything happens it
would mean that he was most likely responsible. Which means that a
reasonable person would think "hey, if he's in the will, maybe that
means he wasn't the secret keeper. I wonder why Pettigrew doesn't get
anything? hmm..."

Leah:
> And in what way was DD responsible for that wrong
> decision?

Random832:
I'm saying that _sirius_ made a wrong decision in trusting DD.

Leah:
>  Your
> words 'completely screwed him' suggest that DD reneged on some
> promise or deal.

Random832:
No, it doesn't. It means that by DD's direct actions, Sirius ended up
completely screwed. He did "give evidence" against him, after all.

Leah:
> Where exactly is any of this DD's fault?

Random832:
It's his fault that Sirius never got questioned under veritaserum.

> Leah:
>
> As Alla has pointed out in her reply to your post, we do not know
> the full meaning of the blood protection.

Random832:
Clearly it didn't work well enough. Since it's clearly not perfect, we
have to weigh what it _does_ do with whatever defences anyone else
(the weasleys, the longbottoms, sirius, DD) could have provided.
Voldemort was gone (not for good, but he was gone for the next
decade).

By a year after the Godric's Hollow incident, there was very little
threat to Harry. So why not move him?

For that, we need to remember the reason we were given for his
placement with the Dursleys before we'd ever heard of blood
protection: to keep him ignorant of the wizarding world. I think one
reason it's often overlooked is because it's a lot less noble a
purpose than protecting him from harm, so it doesn't fit with the
"epitome of goodness" thing. But it was something that DD was trying
to do, and it might well have been a significant factor in his
decision.

-- 
Random832