Marietta

[justcarol67]

No: HPFGUIDX 169564

montims wrote:
<snip>> 
> I would also mention that Umbridge set Dementors on Harry, off her
own bat, not knowing that he could fight them off, and not caring who
else could have been attacked. <snip>

Carol responds:

Are you sure that Umbridge didn't know that Harry could fight off the
Dementors? It seems to me that the whole point was to get him to cast
a Patronus and be tried for violating the Decree for the Restriction
of Underage Wizardry, preferably with a Muggle present, so that he
would also be violating the Statute of Secrecy. Umbridge wasn't trying
to "murder" Harry, and what would be the point of having a teenage boy
soul-sucked? It would turn the whole WW (except the DEs) against the
Ministry. She was trying to discredit Dumbledore by discrediting Harry.

As Umbridge herself says, "Somebody had to act. They were all bleating
about silencing you somehow--discrediting you--but I was the only one
who actually *did* something about it" (747).

Fudge didn't know that Umbridge had sent the Dementors but was
delighted at the chance to expel Harry, "Only you wriggled out of that
one, didn't you, Potter?" (same page).

Crucioing Harry (or forcing him to tell the truth about DD using
Veritaserum) also qualifies as, in Umbridge's view, "an issue of
Ministry security" (746).

Based on her own explanations and her treatment of Harry (she wants
him interrogated, through torture if necessary, not dead), and her
opposition to Dumbledore, I think it's safe to say that she *expected*
Harry to cast a Patronus, preferably in front of a Muggle, and be
viewed as a liar (after all, Fudge knew that the Dementors were in the
Ministry's control and would never believe that a Ministry official
had sent them). And making Harry look like a liar discredits his
story, and DD's, that Voldemort is back. IOW, she's primarily
concerned with discrediting Dumbledore and his favorite boy and
silencing their "lies" about Voldemort's return (and quite possibly,
she really believes that the stories are lies since the only supporing
evidence appears, belatedly, in the Quibbler--which has also accused
Fudge of murdering goblins and baking them in pies).

Now, how would Umbridge know that Harry can cast a Patronus if Fudge
didn't know? (I checked PoA to be sure that he doesn't.) I can think
of two possibilities, both people that Umbridge knows who could have
told her: Percy Weasley (who would have heard it from Ron) and Lucius
Malfoy (who could have heard it from Draco). The first seems more
likely, since Percy views Umbridge as "a delightful woman" and Draco
may not have known what the silver thing was that knocked him down
when he was posing as a Dementor. I'm not ruling out the possibility,
though, since Lucius would have figured out what the silver thing was
if Draco told him the story.

Carol, not for a moment defending Umbridge, who is simultaneously
ruthless and inept