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

[pippin_999]

> 
> 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. 

Pippin:
If framing Morfin was part of his plan, Voldemort would want the
murder discovered. Morfin didn't fit with Voldemort's little fantasy
of being descended from a great wizarding family any more than  the 
Riddles, Sr. did. Ergo, he had to be eliminated. It's the same sort
of  impulse that led Mrs. Black to blast inconvenient relatives off
the family tree, only Voldemort wasn't satisfied with vicarious 
obliterations.

The Riddles were a wealthy and prominent family, and their bodies 
were discovered, making ministry involvement more or less mandatory.
The prime directive is preventing the discovery of the magical
world, after all.

But Bryce was an old man, friendless and unconnected, who simply 
disappeared, no doubt devoured by Nagini after he was dead. The
Ministry could barely bestir itself to take an interest in the absence
of Bertha Jorkins, a witch.  Why would they care if some old Muggle
man disappears?

Eloise:
> 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)?

Pippin:
Voldemort's servants have risen high in the ministry, and are
presumably better able to  shield themselves from detection
than when they were all Hogwarts students.

Eloise: 
> 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? 

Pippin:
Wasn't the official line was that he'd died of a freak accident?
Voldemort's supporters would be perfectly happy with that, 
along with the ostrich brigade. Dumbledore's supporters were 
insisting he was murdered by Voldemort, but would they press 
too hard for a change in the official cause of death unaccompanied 
by an admission of Voldemort's return?

That could only point the finger at Harry, since he was the only
one in the maze. No good.

BTW, now that we know JKR's real opinion of spectator sports, the
spectacle of an arena full of fans raptly looking on as nothing much
happens (in the 2nd and 3rd tasks)  sounds less like an oversight 
and more like a sly joke. 

Eloise: 
> 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? 

Pippin:
Umbridge knew it was Harry because she'd sent the dementors to
attack him. They probably reported what had happened, including
the presence of a Muggle, straight to her, and she in turn told 
Mafalda Hopkirk exactly what to put in the owl,
implying, if necessary,  that it would have a negative impact on 
Mafalda's job security if she asked too many questions.

That was, of course, Plan B. Plan A would have had Harry
soul-sucked by 'rogue' dementors. 

> 
> 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. 
> 

Pippin:
I don't think any of the Unforgivables can be performed without
malice and intent, and that's why they are unforgivable. We know
there are curses that accomplish the same things that don't require 
as much of either. Sectum sempra could easily kill, yet Harry had
no idea at all of the damage it could do. 

Merope could have used imperius instead of a love potion to 
ensnare Tom Riddle, and we've seen that love potions can have
unintended results, too. 

Potions can also cause agony or death, regardless of
the brewer's intention. Hermione certainly didn't mean to become
a catgirl, and Neville's potion might have poisoned Trevor.

In a way the lesser curses are more  dangerous, though seemingly 
less powerful.  Doesn't Dumbledore say that indifference often does 
more damage than hate? That the ministry is so much more concerned 
about the unforgivables just proves that they are foolish compared to 
Dumbledore. But we knew that.

Pippin