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

[eloise_herisson]

You'll be glad to know I'm going away for a few days. ;-)

> > Eloise:
> > the point I was answering... was to do with why they would get 
> > involved *in the first place* > >  
> 
>  Pippin:
> 
> They get involved in the first place because it's their job, which, 
thanks
> to gadflies like the DP, they do occasionally. 

Eloise:
I wasn't asking a question there, just clarifying what my previous 
answer had been about. That I didn't think the MOM was under pressure 
from the general wizarding populace to deal with this Muggle murder 
because the general wizarding populace would have no knowledge of it 
unless the MOM chose to let them know about it.

Pippin:
> The MoM detected magic in the Riddle house  when it was young Tom
> Riddle, who (apparently) expected the murder to be discovered, and
> in fact arranged for someone to take the fall. 

<snip>
I don't think it's inconsistent that Voldemort has ways 
> of  hiding his magic from the MoM. Harry says they can't find him, 
and
> yet he uses crucio and AK with abandon.
> 
> But if you want to peg it as a Flint instead...shrugs.


Eloise:
No, it's not inconsistent with the evidence in HBP. But then if this 
is the case... forgive me, but aren't we back to where we started? 
How did the MOM know that Harry had been AK'd at GH?



Pippin:
> As I've said, I don't think we've seen that they have a way of
> remotely detecting when a spell is performed by an underaged 
> wizard. Dumbledore says they don't. What they 
> might have, if Voldemort's boat is a clue, is a way of detecting
> traces of a mature wizard. So if they detect a spell, and they
> don't detect a mature wizard, then they could conclude it was an
> underage wizard, if they bothered to be logical at all and didn't
> throw the first likely suspect into Azkaban, which is more their
> style.
> 
> Would uglybaby!Voldemort register
> as a mature wizard? I wonder.

Eloise:
This does seem to lead to their monitoring every spell cast in the 
country. Which I suppose, in a magical world might be possible. It 
could certainly provide some of that employment we've found hard to 
identify. ;-)

> 
> > Eloise:
> 
> > I suppose that I find it incomprehensible that there were *no* 
> > formalities. In the Muggle world you'd have a post mortem even if 
it 
> > didn't proceed to an inquest (which, at least over here, it would 
> > *have* to).
> 
> Pippin:
> Formalities? in the WW? Look at what happened to Sirius!
> The WW government is sort of an English-speaking banana republic,
> IMO.

Eloise:
I know. Depressing, isn't it? I suppose there are low expectations in 
the WW.

> Pippin:
> The wizarding world is even loopier than I thought if the best 
evidence
> of a Muggle having witnessed magic is not the testimony of said 
Muggle.

Eloise:
It's not the *best* testimony - it's not independent. Also, Dudley 
wasn't any old Muggle, but a family member who already necessarily 
knew that Harry was a wizard, so in fact there arguably wasn't even a 
breach of the Statute of Secrecy (Hmmm. We have lots of mixed 
marriages in the WW. Wonder how they fit into all this. A lot of 
wedding night surprises, I guess.) 

And it doesn't alter the case that.... well, OK we're talking about a 
banana republic as you say....but as Dumbledore reminded Snape once, 
there s a principal of "innocent until proven guilty". The burden is 
normally on the prosecution to prove guilt and they seemed to be 
prepared to offer no proof whatsoever. Of course, Harry admitted what 
he'd done almost immediately (great preparation he had!), but there 
was no witness for the prosecution present at the proceeedings. And 
Dumbledore played the game, offering defence for something which was 
merely unsubstantiated allegation unless it went without saying that 
the MOM had some cast iron way of detecting such spells. I felt his 
acquiescence supported this, though admittedly the water is muddied 
by it being a frame up.

Pippin:
> Anyway, they certainly used evidence from Muggles in Sirius's case.

Eloise:
True.
Well, Fudge said there were eye-witnesses who saw Sirius blast 
Pettigrew, which of course he didn't. And their memories were 
conveniently wiped (I should imagine at the scene, as soon as they'd 
been interviewed). But then Fudge is Ever So Evil and framed Sirius 
anyway. <beg>


Um...thinking about witnesses...Mrs Figg, as I think you pointed out 
did seem to know independently that Harry was fighting off Dementors, 
although she "came panting into sight" after they had left. I think 
Mr Tibbles had only warned her that Mundungus had left. Just a 
curious detail. I wonder how she knew if she couldn't see them and 
wasn't close enough to feel them? Perhaps it was the lights failing.

~Eloise