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

[eloise_herisson]

 Pippin:
> The Riddle murder did attract some attention, due to its
> sensational circumstances. Three people, apparently
> frightened to death? Sounds like a tabloid headline to me.
> Surely the London authorities (that would be Scotland
> Yard, right?) would be involved.
> 
> But any wizard who heard about it would guess at once  
> that a wizard murderer was on the loose. That would 
> put pressure on the MOM to act. 

Eloise:
I think Dumbledore suggests that his interest in Muggle news is 
unusual. I doubt many ordinary wizards would have heard of it as they 
would have to go out of their way to read the Muggle press or listen 
to the Muggle wireless (I suppose they might have gone to the cinema 
and seen a news reel).

Pippin:
But the Bryce disappearance did not 
> attract attention from anybody and there was no evidence, even for 
> wizards, that magic was involved. As far as the MOM was concerned, 
> Morfin was the Riddle murderer, and since he was long dead, there 
was 
> no reason to think that the Bryce disappearance, fifty years later,
> had anything to do with wizards.

Eloise:
Oh, agreed, but that still leaves some ambiguity (IMO) of why the MOM 
detects magic in some circumstances and not others, assuming, as 
seems to be implied in the text, that there is some way that the MOM 
has of remotely sensing when magic happens.
  
>  
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: 
> > 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? ;-)
> > 
> 
Pippin:
> "and it's very important for us to have spies in the Ministry, 
because
> you can bet Voldemort will have them." -- OOP ch 5

Eloise:
Not *exactly* canon evidence that they have risen high. <g>

Pippin:
> and no, I don't think Fudge is ESE.

Eloise:
Couldn't resist that one.
> 
>  
 Pippin:
> The TWT was a highly dangerous, at your own risk activity, and
> participants had been warned they would be risking their lives.
> Most people didn't know what kind of hazards were inside the
> maze. It would be at least plausible that Cedric had died by 
> misadventure. 

Eloise:
I accept your reasons for why there might not have been an enquiry. 
But *magic always leaves traces*. And his death, which therefore bore 
traces of magic also thus bore the marks, or rather the lack of 
marks, of an AK.

> 
> > Eloise:
> 
> > 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:
> There were two charges -- underage magic
> doesn't depend on a Muggle being present. Assuming
> the Ministry detected the  patronus charm independent
> of Umbridge's meddling, they would have a reasonably 
> solid case.

Eloise:
If they detected this independent of Umbridge's meddling, they must 
also have been able to detect who did it, or at least that a minor 
did it (in order to know it was underage) which Dumbledore tells us 
they can't do. Otherwise they would have detected Tom's AKs and known 
either who did them or that they were performed by an underage wizard 
in which case they wouldn't have gone after Morfin.

Pippin:
 The other one, violating the
> Statute of Secrecy, is more serious, and would require the
> prosecution to prove the presence of a Muggle. But that the 
> wizard was in danger of his life is a defense against both charges.
> 
> Realistic courtroom procedures would be far too tedious for a Harry
> Potter book, thank goodness! But supposing there were such things,
> it would make sense for the defense to stipulate that Dudley was
> present, even though it would moot the point of how the MoM learned
> he was there. Pig tail, flying car, ton-tongue toffees, highly
> irregular and possibly illicit connection of a Muggle fireplace to
> the floo network, the destruction of his parents' living room, oh
> dear!  Dudley is aware of a number of things which would be better 
> left quiet, I should think. 
> 
> And Dudley, even if he were brought into court, could not have
> testified that there were dementors present of his own knowledge. He
> thought Harry was attacking him, and would have said so.

Eloise:
I wasn't suggesting for a minute that Dudley should be brought into 
the proceedings. (What value would a Muggle's testimony be anyway, 
not to mention that Petunia and Vernon for different reasons would 
have forbidden it, supported by Dumbledore.)

What I'm saying is that if the prosecution themselves couldn't bring 
forward the witness who had informed the MOM that they had, err,  
witnessed magic being performed in front of a Muggle, then they 
hadn't a leg to stand on. 


> > Eloise:
> >  And I agree that in normal circumstances, one must need 
> > malice to perform the Unforgivables.
> 
> Pippin:
> I'm not sure there are any exceptions -- I don't think they work
> without some malicious intent. You might, purely out of the 
goodness 
> of your heart, want to use Imperius on someone -- to get them to 
quit
> drinking, for example. Or you might attempt to use Crucio as Harry
> did,  purely out of righteous anger.
> 
>  But I think Bella's right. I don't think the magic would work.

Eloise:
Bella probably is, but I don't think the case for exactly what she 
meant is cast iron yet. Righteous anger is different from really 
wanting to hurt someone, I think. And really wanting someone to die 
because, for example, the alternative is much to bear is different 
again IMO. At any rate, I wouldn't be surprised if we find there's 
some inconsistency/get out here when it comes to explaining Snape's 
AK. The insistence on the intent smacks too much of *wanting* us to 
believe that Snape's intent was evil on the Tower. Which, I admit, it 
might have been. 

~Eloise