Dumbledore and other leaders WAS: Moody's death

[Carol]

No: HPFGUIDX 181880

Carol earlier:
> 
> > The only alternative was to fly out, with as many decoys as feasible, 
> 
Lee responded:
> Can anyone tell me why, instead polyjuicing six people to look like
Harry, they didn't just polyjuice Harry to look like someone else
(say, Duddykins and let him drive away with the Dursleys)? Or better
yet, polyjuice seven people to look like Harry, *and* polyjuice Harry
to look like someone else?
> 
> Or just keep him at Hogwarts and not send him back in the first place?

Carol responds:
Last question first: DD has made sure that the protection at Privet
Drive, the strongest that he can give to Harry, is still in place
until his seventeenth birthday by having Harry return there during the
summer holiday. There's no such magical protection at Hogwarts, which
DD knows that LV is planning to take over, anyway, *and* he knows that
he's likely to die. (He may even be planning to have Snape take his
place as headmaster at that point, in which case, Harry certainly
wouldn't be returning to Hogwarts even if he weren't hunting Horcruxes!)

Nor can they Polyjuice Harry to look like Dudley since Dudley also has
to leave Privet Drive. Why they didn't Polyjuice Harry to look like
one of the guardians, preferably one that the guardians wouldn't be
likely to pursue, I don't know.

Lee: 
> On page 47 Moody says, "We're choosing to break it [the protective 
charm] early...." Why does the spell need to be broken early? The
breaking of the charm will presumably be detected by the MoM, so
wouldn't it be better to leave it intact?

Carol:
They're counting on the element of surprise rather than letting it
break on its own at a predetermined time. (That's what makes Snape's
information *seems* so valuable to LV.)
> 
Lee:
> Moody explains they can't get Harry out via conventional methods
because Thicknesse has made it illegal to connect Harry's house to the
floo network or to Apparate out. No indication that the MoM is
actually blocking Apparation, just that it's illegal. So hang the
legalities and Apparate out anyway. If the MoM could trace Apparation,
the Trio couldn't have stayed lost for so many months waiting for
Harry to make up his mind.

Carol:This part is harder to answer. Of course, the Dursleys' house
wouldn't be part of the Floo Network, anyway, and it would require the
help of someone in that department to connect it (as happened in GoF),
so that option really is out, but why not Apparate directly to the
Weasleys or some other safe house, or have, say, Mad-Eye or Lupin
side-along Apparate Harry just to be sure? Yes, the MoM would know
that it had happened, but, as you say, I don't see why they didn't
have Harry Apparate out, with or without help, a day or two before his
birthday. I'll have to think some more about that one.
> 
Lee:
> Moody also describes the Trace to Harry as the charm that detects 
"magical activity" "around" under-seventeens. Huh??? The whole
kit-n-kaboodle of 'em just just flew in under a basketful of 
Disillusionment spells. That's not magical activity?

Carol:
The Disillusionment Charms must have been performed before they
arrived. But then they had to be lifted at 4 Privet Drive, so the
Order must have been counting on the protective Charm once their
presence had been detected.
 
Lee:
> Hagrid riding a flying motorcycle. That's not magical activity?
Mooody's packing a six-er of polyjuice. That's not magical activity?

Carol:
I don't think those two count. Neither do the brooms or the Thestrals.
The charms on the motorcycle (and the brooms) were performed long
before, and carrying and drinking a potion of any kind probably isn't
detectable. It's only spells that can be detected, as I understand it.

Lee:
 They're about to break Lily's protective charm. That's not magical
activity? Thestrals and flying broomsticks aren't magical activity? 

Carol:
Of course, breaking the protective charm will be detected, and Moody
anticipates a couple of DE scouts waiting for that to happen. (No need
for the MoM to alert LV.) That's why Harry has his Order escort and
the decoys, so that when they summon LV and the other DEs, the bad
guys won't know whom to pursue. As for Thestrals and broomsticks, no,
I don't think that's detectable magical activity, unlike Apparation,
which requires a wand.

Lee:
The Dursleys' house is ground zero in a hurricane of swirling "magical
activity". If the MoM hasn't realized something's up at Privet Drive
by now, they're not going to notice one Apparation more or less.

Carol:
Again, it's not the MoM they're worried about. It's the DEs who are
undoubtedly watching the place. (Of course, they don't know that the
date of Harry's escape has already been revealed as part of DD's plan
to reinforce LV's trust in Snape.

At any rate, regardless of detection, nothing can harm Harry or anyone
at 4 Privet Drive until the protective charm is broken.

Lee: 
> Or does Moody really just mean wand use? But that doesn't work
either, because they detected Dobby's wandless magic.

Carol:
More like charms and other spells, which require wands for Wizards but
can be performed wandlessly by a House-Elf. It's still a hover charm,
regardless of whether a House-Elf or a Wizard performed it.

Lee:
> CJ, whose given up counting holes in Moody's plan

Carol:
I don't think there are quite as many holes as you're counting, but I
do wonder why Apparition, legal or illegal, wouldn't work.

Lee: 
> P.S. I've recently had a complaint about the attribution line my
e-mail reader inserts: "_____ blessed us with this gem On...." (see
above); the impression was that it drips with sarcasm.
> 
> Does it strike anyone else that way? It's certainly not intended 
sarcastically, but if it strikes anyone else that way, I'll have to
change it.

Carol:
I realized after it had appeared a few times that it must be
automatically inserted. Let's just say that it does sound slightly
sarcastic, and a person reading it for the first time in connection
with his or her own post might feel mildly offended despite your not
intending any offense. At any rate, whatever charm or originality the
attribution may once have had has been lost through overuse, IMO.

BTW, if you post from the list, you won't have to worry about your
e-mail reader acting on its own a la Harry's wand.

Carol, thanking Lee for asking about that attribution line, which I do
think should be changed unless he goes with my alternate suggestion