Detecting magic (was: re AKs and Horcrux!Harry and soul-ripping )

[eloise_herisson]

Eloise:
> > We Muggles have problems with this AK. *Why the heck* does anybody
> in  the WW think Harry was subject to one? 
> 
> 
> Pippin:
> Because the ministry has ways of detecting it.
> "The Ministry, on the other hand, knew at once that this was a
> wizard's murder." "They can detect magic but not the perpetrator." 
> HBP-US  367,368


Eloise:
Fair cop.
And I guess on the evidence of Dobby's Hover Charm that they can tell 
*what* spell is used. Otherwise I'd be tempted to suggest that they 
knew magic had been used, but not what magic.

However, I'm not entirely happy with this because the implication (in 
Dumbledore's answer re Morfin) although not spelled out, is that 
Tom's magic in the Riddle House was picked up because it was underage 
magic in a property not inhabited by adult wizarding folk, whereas 
his spell on Morfin wasn't, for the opposite reason. If it weren't 
for that, I would read "The Ministry, on the other hand, knew at once 
that this was a  wizard's murder," to mean that they recognised the 
signs of an AK in the unexpected, apparently injury-free deaths and 
the look of horror on the faces (which would beg the question of how 
they got involved in these Muggle murders at all). 

That there had been magic at Godric's Hollow was presumably easily 
detectable; that Harry had been specifically subject to an AK, on the 
evidence available, I should have thought less so.  The AK's aimed at 
the Potters were performed in a magical household and moreover one 
that was protected by the Fidelius. I wonder if the MOM radar would 
have picked them up at all? But, then perhaps it was able to 
penetrate the protections on GH and sense three separate AKs. My 
PS/SS has just disappeared into the black hole that is my youngest 
one's bedroom. Does Hagrid suggest it was MOM officials that were 
swarming over the place, or the Muggle authorities?

How far does the MOM go to detect magic? Are they just on the look 
out for certain spells, or magic performed under certain 
circumstances? Or both? As you implicitly acknowledge below (though 
elegantly explaining it away) there's a potential inconsistency here 
with the Bryce murder. 
 
Pippin:
> Now, Voldemort presumably has ways of interfering with the detection
> when he wants a murder to remain secret, as in the case of Frank 
Bryce
> or Bertha Jorkins, 


Eloise:
If so, despite mastering the "complex" magic he needed to implant a 
false memory in Morfin's mind (and also, presumably, to create a 
Horcrux), he hadn't discovered how to interfere with detection when 
he murdered his family. Dumbledore didn't think of that one, but put 
the MOM's lack of in interest in the Bryce murder down to a lack of 
interest in Muggles. 

An alternative for the Bryce inconsistency is that the Riddle house 
is now registered as a Wizarding property and therefore not monitored 
for untoward magical activity. I don't think  Tom's name can be on 
the title deeds, though. I always had my suspicions that the absentee 
owner was Malfoy.

But then why didn't all the stuff in the graveyard register (lucky 
for Harry, that, or he'd have been hauled up for underage magic out 
of school again)?

And why didn't the MOM detect that Cedric died from an AK, either 
from detecting the spell being cast (presumably Voldemort somehow 
shielded the graveyard from detection) or at the least from the post 
mortem evidence? 

And there's another thing here that I'm not quite getting my head 
round. The MOM detected Harry's Patronus in OoP, even though it was 
performed out in the open. 

How did they know it was *Harry* and how did they know the spell was 
cast in the presence of a Muggle? Sure he's the only wizard recorded 
as living in the area, but that's hardly proof that it was him and 
the Owl he received was very specific (unlike the Hover Charm letter, 
IIRC, which I think just said that they knew the charm had been 
performed at his home).

Simple answer
 they detected it because it was underage magic
..but 
then they would know that the magic performed in Morfin's home was 
done by a minor, which they don't because they can only detect magic, 
not the perpetrator and here we are back at the beginning.

(I guess we can get round this one by saying that there was a 
witness. However, within the action of the book, I don't think the 
MOM's detection of the charm is questioned. I could be wrong as my 
grasp of OoP canon isn't the securest.)


Pippin:
> but I am sure that if all had gone as Voldemort 
> planned, the Dark Mark would have blazed above Godric's Hollow that 
> night.  The Potter murder was not supposed to be a 
> secret.


Eloise:
Although I doubt that Voldemort would have wanted anyone to know the 
reason for the murder, viz that there was *anyone*, let alone a baby, 
whose potential power he feared and therefore he might not have 
advertised it.

> Eloise:
> > What does Diary!Tom *know*? The fact that he knew about Harry's
> early history is intriguing. 
> 
> Pippin:
> Diary!Tom says he learned about Harry from Ginny :"Well, you see,
> Ginnytold me all about you. Your whole *fascinating* history."


Eloise:
Thanks for that. My COS has gone AWOL, which has been very 
frustrating recently.


> Eloise:
> > So we have a spell that doesn't act like an AK and yet it not 
being
> one  just doesn't make sense from where I'm sitting.
> > 
> > I can only believe with Neri that if Harry *is* a Horcrux, then he
> is  an unintentional one and even then...
> 
> 
> Pippin:
> Well, we know that wizards can do unintentional magic, especially if
> they're angry or frightened. Voldemort, seeing his own AK bounce
> off and come at him would be very angry and frightened indeed, I
> would think.
> 
> He might have formed a horcrux the same way Harry blew up
> Aunt Marge, as a subconscious expression of his rage and fear,
> and like Harry, he would have no idea that he'd done it until he
> saw the results.

Eloise:
What I was trying to say, really.

> Eloise:
> > Do/can the rips heal? Does *any* killing rip the soul? Are those
> who  kill in the course of war similarly damaged? And what damage
> exactly  does the ripping do? 
> 
> 
> Pippin:
> Slughorn says "By committing murder. Killing rips the soul apart." 
> It sounds like he is using "killing" as a synonym for murder and 
that
> malice and premeditation are important. And we have this from
> Sirius, "I'll say this for Moody, though, he never killed if he 
could 
> help it. Always brought people in alive where possible." GoF  ch27.
> So Moody has killed, and yet he's an order member in good standing.


Eloise:
This is something I've found difficult. The AK is "the killing 
curse", yet it's hard to imagine there's only one magical means of 
killing someone, even just one curse that is specifically a killing 
curse. It works both ways. Calling it the "killing" curse, in a way 
makes it sound more neutral than *murder* which led me to ask before 
whether it was in fact possible to perform it without malice (but 
obviously with intent). OTOH, it's Unforgivable. 


Debbie:
<Snipped all that went before as it made perfect sense>

>Therefore, he went to Godric's Hollow with the intention of
>killing James to tear out the soul fragment he needed (which is why
>Lily needn't have died)


Eloise:
Except that why would he leave an enemy alive when he had the 
opportunity to get rid of them? And what more vengeful enemy could 
there be that a mother whose son had just had Dark Magic performed on 
him?

~Eloise