Legilimency without consent WAS: Obviously guilty

[zanooda2]

No: HPFGUIDX 189675




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

> Glad to see that we agree that Legilimency does not need consent

zanooda:

Well, yeah, LV obviously didn't ask Gregorovitch's permission to get into his mind, did he :-)? That was very forceful... ;-(.

> 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.

zanooda:

Right, not two types, just two ways to do it, one more effective than the other.

> Alla:

> However do we know how *less* clearer the picture is 
> without consent and whether spell always would give 
> more clear picture?

zanooda:

No, as you said, it's mostly guesses and speculations, from my part as well as from yours :-). We have a good example of noticeably less clear picture in the case of Snape and the stolen potion ingredients, but unfortunately we can't be 100% percent sure that Snape legilimenced Harry at all then. It's just our guess, although a very good one :-).  

> Alla:
 
> I think Snape would have reacted same way though no matter 
> what he saw.

zanooda:

Snape wouldn't have accused Harry of stealing the boomslang skin and whatever else if he could see clearly in his mind that he didn't do it. What would be the point :-)?