Legilimency without consent WAS: Obviously guilty

[zanooda2]

No: HPFGUIDX 189669




--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "dumbledore11214" <dumbledore11214 at ...> wrote:

> about not knowing about performing Legilimency 
> without consent. 

zanooda:

A Legilimens doesn't need a consent, but doesn't he need an eye contact to get into someone's head :-)? At the very least, the eye contact is *very* important. Both DD and Snape legilimenced Harry in earlier books, because he didn't know what they were doing, otherwise he would have just avoided their probing gaze. 

Unlike Harry, James must have known about DD's ability, and if he was determined to hide the SK switch from DD, all he has to do was not to look him directly in the eye.

Besides, I thought there were two types of Legilimency: the one that requires a spell and the one that doesn't. The one with the spell is much more intrusive and can't go unnoticed, but gives a much clearer picture. The one without a spell doesn't alert the legilimenced person, but gives a very vague picture, more like an impression. 

For instance, Snape was so convinced in GoF that Harry stole gillyweed and other stuff from him because he saw some guilty thoughts in Harry's mind. However, if he could legilimence Harry properly with the spell, like he did during their Legilimency lessons, he would have likely realized that it wasn't Harry who stole the ingredients. 

So even if DD tried to legilimence James, without the spell and without the eye contact he wouldn't have seen much. Nothing coherent at least, IMO :-).