Legilimency without consent WAS: Obviously guilty

[dumbledore11214]

No: HPFGUIDX 189671



Alla:
<SNIP> 
> > 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 :-)?

Alla:

Yes, of course! Glad to see that we agree that Legilimency does not need consent, I was surprised that I even have to prove that something that looks and smells as Legilimency is actually a Legilimency :)

Zanooda:
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. 

Alla:

And again, I say yes certainly I am in complete agreement with you.

Zanooda:
> 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.

Alla:

Now, before I say anything further, let me stress that I totally understand that whether he legilimenced James or not is not possible to prove and I am speculating. I base it on Dumbledore's character as I understand it in general that he would never IMO let something important to him go if he can get such knowledge and on him repeatedly legilimencing Harry without his consent. Having said it, you could be totally right and he may not have done it.

However, how do we know that James knew swat about  Dumbledore doing Legilimency on him?(for that matter how did he know that Legilimency even exists? Oh being from Wizarding family he must have I suppose, but do we know for sure?).

I agree though that if he suspected that Dumbledore could have done it, he would have tried to avoid it. But I thought when Dumbledore borrowed the Cloak they already decided to do the switch? Do you see them meeting and James constantly not looking at Dumbledore? I think that it is very likely that he looked at least once and that is all Dumbledore needed to get what he wanted I think.


Zanooda:
> 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. 

Alla:

I do not know whether those are two types of Legilimency, but I would agree that spell  could give more clear picture as in the lessons. However do we know how *less* clearer the picture is without consent and whether spell always would give more clear picture?

Zanooda:
> 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. 

Alla:

Sure you could be absolutely right. I think Snape would have reacted same way though no matter what he saw.

Zanooda:
> 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 :-).

Alla:

As I said above it is my speculation that eye contact was pretty impossible to avoid during that meeting and we do not know how clear picture would have been without spell. I mean, comparatively speaking. It is not like Dumbledore would have hunt particularly deeply for the thoughts about Secret keeper IMO, I think that could have been one of the thoughts on James' mind which was very important to him and was not on the back of his mind at all.

JMO,

Alla