Stan Shunpike - As White as he's Painted?

[justcarol67]

No: HPFGUIDX 165852

Goddlefrood wrote:
<snip>
> Stan first appears, as we know on the Knight Bus in the chapter of
the same name back in PoA. He is portrayed as rather goofy and
probably naive. I say this because he looks directly at Harry's scar
when Harry first gets on the bus, but seemingly fails to register,
even while he and Harry are discussing the Prophet article relative to
Sirius.
> 
> He is put over as a good natured, but slightly foolish young man,
and here I'm thinking of his continued use of Neville to address 
Harry even after he discovers who Harry really is. He is further 
portrayed as a love struck dummy in the chapter Dark Mark in GoF 
while attempting to attract some Veelas. <snip>
 
> We are advised that Stan has been arrested in Hermione's Helping 
Hand. (All quotes are from the Bloomsbury Hardback Edition).
> 
> '"Stan Shunpike, conductor on the popular wizarding conveyance the
Knight Bus, has been arrested on suspicion of Death Eater activity.
Mr. Shunpike, 21, was taken into custody late last night after a raid
on his Clapham home ..." (p. 208)
> 
> There follows a short discussion in which the trio give no credence
to what they say is Stan being a Death Eater. The article does not 
specifically state he is a Death Eater or even suspected of being 
one, but that's the trio's interpretation. <snip>

> From this article it can only be concluded that Stan was taken in
for some reason connected with the Death Eaters (or so the Ministry
informed the Prophet). What that was any more certainly we are not
informed due to the article either being just what is quoted above or
the balance of the same not being transcribed by JKR.
> 
> Harry is seemingly very irate about what has happened, and maintains
that position throughout the rest of the book. He gives no credence to
the allegation that Stan could have in any way been involved as a or
with the Death Eaters. <snip>

> In the same chapter (A Very Frosty Christmas) we get a brief glimpse
of a reson why Stan may have been arrested and not released. p. 324:
> 
> "You see, I don't like some of the things the Ministry's doing. 
Locking up Stan Shunpike, for instance."
> Scrimgeour did not speak for a moment, but his expression hardened
instantly. "I would not expect you to understand" he said, and he was
not as successful at keeping anger out of his voice as Harry had been.
"These are dangerous times, and certain measures need to be taken. You
are sixteen years old -"
> 
> Harry goes on to try to justify *his* position, but Scrimgeour 
takes no notice. Now it appears that Scrimgeour wanted to say a >
little more, but held back. <snip> It is, then, a fair assumption to
make that Scrimgeour had a valid reason for Stan's continued
detention, but he won't share with Harry and doesn't. Not knowing him
that well it is not easy to form an opinion of his motivations,
however I would state that he has a better idea of the situation in
the WWW than does Harry.
<snip>
> Any thoughts on what Stan was being held for out there, other than 
> what is in the quoted material above?
>
Carol responds:
I don't know if this is helpful, but a few paragraphs below the
excerpt from the article that you quoted, we have Hermione saying, "It
says here he was arrested after he was overheard talking about the
Death Eaters' secret plans in a pub." 

So, assuming that the article is accurate, he either actually knew
about the Death Eaters' plans (unlikely) or he was spouting unlikely
lies to make himself look powerful and impressive, just as he did
under the influence of the Veelas. ("I'm going to be the youngest ever
Minister of Magic, I am.") We know he's not very bright and he was in
a pub, so he probably had too much to drink.

Harry is right, I think, that the MoM needs to look as if it's doing
something, and scrimgeour is certainly trying to use him as the MoM's
poster boy to boost WW morale, so I understand his position. And he is
also probably right that Stan Shunpike is a harmless idiot.
Nevertheless, I can also understand the MoM's position. If a young man
is caught bragging that he knows Death Eater's secrets, it would be
foolish not to take him in for interrogation. Holding him after the
interrogation if no solid evidence comes to light is another matter,
and Stan has in Azkaban for seven or eight months when Harry confronts
Scrimgeour in "The White Tomb."

I'm not sure what to think of Scrimgeour--he's not on the side of the
Death Eaters, IMO, but Dumbledore has reservations about him. (He
calls him a "man of action who has fought Dark wizards most of his
working life" but doesn't answer the question of whether he's "good,"
HBP Am. ed. 61). Also, Scrimgeour had some sort of suspicion regarding
Tonks and Shacklebolt back in OoP (possibly he suspected them of
knowing Sirius Black's whereabouts or of being loyal to Dumbledore,
who was supposedly making a power bid to oust Fudge). He's curious
about Dumbledore's doings in HBP as well. (I assume that it was
Scrimgeour who sent Dawlish to tail Dumbledore.) It's odd, BTW, that
Scrimgeour sits in the front row with McGonagall at Dumbledore's
funeral rather than with the revolting Umbridge and the
miserable-looking, apparently penitent Fudge (HBP 642).

Just to stick my neck out a little, I'd say that the Aurors were right
to arrest Stan in the first place and take him in for questioning but
wrong not to release him after failing to find sufficient evidence to
hold a trial. Maybe habeas corpus has been suspended, if it ever
existed in the WW (given Crouch Sr.'s behavior in the GoF Pensieve
scenes and the imprisonment of Sirius Black, I'm not sure it ever
did.)? If so, not a good sign.

Carol, suspecting that Harry is right about Stan and glad that he's
presuming someone innocent for once