Blood Protection/Dumbledore and Harry

[littleleahstill]

No: HPFGUIDX 158616

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Jordan Abel" <random832 at ...> 
wrote:
>> 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:
JK Rowling's website makes it perfectly clear (see under FAQS:Books) 
that she views Barty Crouch Snr as the person responsible for 
sending Sirius to Azkaban- and that he did so with regard to the 
testimony of many reliable witnesses (ie not just DD). 

> 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:
I don't think we can blame DD for not noticing something which is 
purely your suppostion.

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

Leah:
Had Sirius and James fully trusted DD they would have told him of 
the change in Secret Keeper.  
 
> 
> Leah:
> > Where exactly is any of this DD's fault?
> 
> Random832:
> It's his fault that Sirius never got questioned under veritaserum.

Leah:
Again see the same section of JKR's website where she gets out of 
the wh not use veritaserum question, by stating that it is 
unreliable when used in a situation such as a trial where 
the 'victim' will be prepared for its use.

> > 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?

Leah:
To repeat: we don't know exactly what blood protection is protecting 
against, so we don't know that it hasn't worked.  And we know that 
VM is VapourMort in Albania; at that point, DD didn't.  


> 
> 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.

Leah:
It is certainly a perfectly sensible reason; not only does it stop 
Harry becoming 'a pampered little prince', but it allows him to
see the WW afresh.  I don't think it weighed with DD as the blood 
protection weighed with him, otherwise Harry could leave the 
Dursleys at 11.

Leah