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

[eloise_herisson]

 Pippin:
> If framing Morfin was part of his plan, Voldemort would want the
> murder discovered. 

Eloise:
Very good point. Although the alternative was that it was a belts and 
braces approach, given that he might have been (*was*, in fact) seen 
in the vicinity and he was a blood relative who could potentially be 
traced.

 Pippin:
<snip>
> 
> 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.

Eloise:
Except that the Muggle authorities were just mystified and there's 
not really much danger that they would have made the jump to assume 
that they were magical murders, was there? If the MOM simply kept 
their distance, then  what harm could it do? If they got involved, 
then on canon evidence so far, that involvement would presumably mean 
making the PM (who is the only member of government, save any 
individuals who might have family connections, with knowledge of the 
existence of the WW) aware and hushing the thing up. That doesn't 
seem to have happened.

However Tom's action presupposes that the MOM *would* detect the 
murder and get involved and that therefore a fall man had to be 
found. That it was his uncle was an added bonus.

 Pippin:
> 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:
They wouldn't care, which is what Dumbledore said. And I don't think 
they'd care about the Riddles, either, unless they were much more 
prominent than canon suggests.  As far as I can make out, they were 
just the local toffs, folks that the locals would be interested in, 
but not the public at large. They may have been relatively wealthy, 
but there's no evidence they were famous.


> 
> 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.

Do we have any evidence for current DEs in the MOM? Or do you mean 
that the past, people like Rookwood facilitated anti-detection 
methods? Or do you believe in ESE!Fudge? ;-)


> 
> 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?

Yes. But what kind of a freak accident? Muggle authorities wouldn't 
just accept a freak accident as cause without some kind of 
investigation. If you and Dumbledore are right, then magic always 
leaves a mark, so there must have been evidence that Cedric's death 
was magical. Fudge was already wary of Harry. I'm surprised the 
Hogwarts mutterings didn't turn into something more substantial in 
the hands of the MOM. Lord knows, they tried to libel him enough 
(through the Prophet) in OoP.

 Pippin:
> 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?

Eloise:
Probably not, but it's still an inconsistency. Why didn't Cedric's 
parents press for an investigation?

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

Eloise:
No good for Dumbledore's supporters, but obvious for the MOM.

<snip>
> 
> 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:
Yes.  Of course.

The inconsistency is that the charge was capable of being brought. If 
the charge was dependent on there being a witness, then Dumbledore 
was negligent in not demanding prosecution evidence. That he didn't 
suggests that he accepted that the MOM was capable of detecting  a 
specific individual doing magic in the presence of a Muggle. It would 
have been far easier to demolish the case by demanding the testimony 
of a witness for the prosecution than to bring on his own  rather 
dubious and risky defence witness to perjure herself.

> Pippin:
> I don't think any of the Unforgivables can be performed without
> malice and intent, and that's why they are unforgivable. 
<snip> 
> 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.

Eloise:
We did. And I agree that in normal circumstances, one must need 
malice to perform the Unforgivables. It's hard to envisage 
circumstances under which one would wish to hurt another without 
malice, but there are perhaps circumstances under which one might 
wish to control or kill someone without malice. I might really *mean* 
to stop that child running out in front of that lorry by Imperioing 
them. I might really *want* someone to die rather than to suffer any 
longer and AK is instant and potentially merciful. Now whether what 
one wants is *right* in those circumstances is debatable, but it's 
indisputable that one might have the same intent 
(controlling/killing)  in terms of action without the same intent in 
terms of motive.

~Eloise