On Children and the "Other" (was:Re: On the perfection of moral virtues)

[dumbledore11214]

No: HPFGUIDX 169580

> > >>Alla;
> > <snip>
> > I am fully convinced that she [Marietta] knew what Umbridge 
was    
> > capable of and she still went to her.
> 
> Betsy Hp:
> Of course you are; only the Prosecution was allowed to testify. 
<bg>  
> We have no *idea* why Marietta did what she did.  All we have to 
go 
> on is a half-spoken testimony from Cho, which the Prosecution 
> objected to pretty much immediately.
> 
> It's very easy to convince the jury of the defendent's guilt if 
> they're not allowed to defend themselves.  See Sirius as a prime 
> example.
<SNIP>

Alla:

Huh? So you are saying that there is an evidence that hidden from us 
that Marietta did not go to Umbridge and/or she did not know what 
she is capable of?

Could you clarify please? Are we going to discover that Marietta was 
polijuiced or something? I am not kidding actually, I am confused.


There was plenty IMO objective evidence quoted that what Umbridge 
did was public knowledge - specifically that her Decrees and what is 
in them was public knowledge. I will grant you that if Marietta 
could not read, could not hear, she did not know what was going on.

And I think the fact that she indeed **went** to Umbridge, I will 
repeat again - she did **Not** go to her mother, if one argues that 
one is loyal to her family as defense, she went to **Dolores 
Umbridge**. She was not even forcefully dragged to Dolores UMbridge, 
she went on her own.

As I also said, I would have been a little bit easier on Marietta, 
if she went to her mother and confessed. I would have still not 
liked it, but at least understood.

I see what Marietta did as undefensible, regardless of what Marietta 
has to say for herself.

IMO unless we learn additional facts of what happened, facts speak 
for themselves here.

Again IMO.


Alla.