Perjury, Dumbledore, and Right v Easy once Again (Re: Percy)

[lupinlore]

No: HPFGUIDX 166117

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "justcarol67" <justcarol67 at ...> 
wrote:

> 
> However, it's still Amelia Bones's job to determine the facts, which
> she succeeds in doing despite Fudge's interference.

Is it, or is it the job of the Wizengamot as a whole?  It depends on 
the theory of law under which the WW operates.  But all that, 
interesting as it is, is beside the point.  She does, whatever her 
role -- and I am not at all sure she is actually acting as the Judge 
here or simply a particularly forceful member of the tribunal -- defy 
Fudge -- who is after all her superior and could presumably bounce 
her from her job -- and swing things in the right way.


 When Harry
> mentions his Patronus, Madam Bones takes over the questioning from
> Fudge, and she takes Harry's statement about Dementors seriously. To
> be sure, it's Dumbledore who makes sure that a witness, Mrs. Figg, 
is
> heard (her testimony is only partially perjured; she didn't *see* 
the
> Dementors, but she knows full well they were there and that Harry
> conjured the Patronus in self-defense--"that was what happened" is 
the
> truth). 

Except she indignantly exclaims, in response to Fudge's query about 
whether squibs can see dementors "Yes, we can!" (paraphrase) which is 
a flat out lie.  Her description of seeing the dementors is also a 
flat out lie, regardless of whether they were there or not.  
Therefore she has lied under "oath," and flagrantly at that, as her 
testimony of seeing the dementors is not open to arguments of 
interpretation but is simply and completely an untruth.  It is an 
untruth that works, but it is nevertheless incredibly dangerous.  Had 
there been anyone on the Wizengamot with personal knowledge of squibs 
three gooses would have been cooked (Harry, Dumbledore, and Mrs. 
Figg).  Come to that, had anyone hostile to Dumbledore learned the 
facts about that during the next months, gooses could have been 
cooked retroactively.

This is yet again, an example of DD giving Harry clear, if unspoken, 
messages about behavior.  We go on and on about Harry lieing by 
omission concerning an old potions book, yet DD, no less than the 
former head of the Wizengamot, gives him a perfect example of 
dishonesty during nothing less than a legal proceeding (perjury, 
coaching witnesses, etc).  Sure, the Wizengamot hearing is a much 
more intense situation where arguably more is at stake, but Harry's 
activity over the potions book was arguably not dishonest at all, so 
the relative comparison holds.  Sure, the Wizengamot is packed and 
unfair, but so in Harry's experience has potions been.

So, what would happen if, as some might have wished, Harry had been 
called on the carpet in front of DD about his behavior in potions.  
Would not a logical - if controversial - response have been, "Oh, 
lieing is only acceptable at the Wizengamot?  Oh, I get it, it was 
RIGHT but HARD to lie to the Wizengamot?  Ahh, looked real hard to 
me.  Not that I'm ungrateful, mind you, but give me a break!"


Lupinlore, who finds DD's arguable hypocrisy on the right-vs-easy 
question most amusing