Some speculations on the night at GH

[nkafkafi]

Lyn wrote:
There are certain guidelines I use when I explore the HP series.

One is that events occurring in "real time" in the series are more
reliable sources than "statements of fact" which come from characters.

Second is that descriptions of past events are more reliable sources
than character's assumptions. However, past events, even if presented
in "real time" are often related as isolated events that are either
lacking in, or of ambiguous context. (Most pensieve scenes, and
Harry's infant memories fall in this category).

Third is that characters have a personality and that their past
behavior is the Best indicator of their future behavior (subject to
the reliability of the source of Information about their past behavior).


Neri:
I agree with all these guidelines but I have several comments, all of
them (as I'll show later) very relevant to your theory:

1. Events occurring in "real time" are indeed the most reliable, but
the *absence* of an event is a less reliable fact than an event that
actually takes place. In the case of an absence it is always possible
that it's JKR's omission due to a mistake, or because she didn't want
to clutter her description with too much unimportant detail, or
because there is some explanation to the absence that we don't know yet.

2. Memories, information from other characters and even real events
should be judged according to their overall consistency. If you find
some inconsistency in a certain description, this suggests that JKR
didn't put much thought into it, and then other "facts" from the same
description, espcially absence of events, also lose credibility.

3. While information from other characters is less reliable, sometime
we have the same information from several different characters in
several different books, and this might outweigh an event occurring in
real time if it was described only once and not in a very reliable way.

4. I noticed that you didn't mention at all the status of facts
brought by JKR in her chats or in her website, but we already know
that we have a disagreement there so I won't be saying anything about
this issue. 

Now to business: 


Lyn:
With these in mind, here are some factors that intrigue me:

The first and foremost is that no spell, AK or otherwise, directed
towards baby
Harry, was summoned forth during the PI in the graveyard scene. We
clearly see the spells that kill James and Lilly, but nothing about
Harry. This serves as a definitive indication to me that whatever wand
issued spell, if any, that was directed towards Harry at GH was not
emitted from the LV (phoenix feather) wand. (This meets my highest
standard of proof, as it comes from an event directly occurring in
real time before us).


Neri:
The absence of the PI shadow of the AK that hit Harry is an *absence*
of an event. It is indeed very intriguing, but it is less reliable
from an actual event. Moreover, there's a logical alternative
explanation to this absence, as Charme noted:


Charme wrote:
I also think another plausible explanation for why, during LV's and
Harry's wand episode in the GoF graveyard, we didn't see the curse
which took LV out of his body - first LV didn't die (and all the
people who came out of his wand did die) <snip>


And Lyn answered:
I have yet to be satisfied by any explanation that suggests that the
effects of a spell emitted from a wand would not be reproduced. We
should have some ghostly image for the TR/LV body being destroyed, or
the explosion, etc.


Neri now:
Actually there are TWO canon cases of *absence* of an emitted spell in
PI. In the graveyard Voldy uses his wand to Crucio Harry (GoF Ch. 34,
p. 661 US), then he uses the Imperio curse on him (same page) but
Harry fights it and refuses to bow. Then Voldy tries to Crucio Harry
again, but this time Harry manages to dodge the beam (p. 662) and it
cracks the tombstone instead. Just three pages later the PI sequence
is described: first Voldemort's wand emits "echoing screams of pain"
(the Crucio against Harry), then "a dense, smoky hand" (Wormtail
silver hand), then "more shouts of pain" (the Crucio against Avery),
then Cedric's echo. This means that the echoes of two unforgivable
curses emitted by Voldy's wand are missing: the Imperio and the second
Crucio against Harry. I can think of two different ways to explain
this absence: Maybe the whole PI business was just a dramatic climax
and JKR has never meant it to serve as a clue for any prior history,
and therefore did not make sure that all the spells emitted by the
wand indeed appear as PI echoes. The other explanation is that the two
missing curses had failed: Harry resisted the Imperio, and the second
Crucio cracked the tombstone (a physical result), but failed to hurt
Harry, which was what it was intended for. Thus it is very probable
that the AK against Harry in GH is also absent from the same PI
sequence because JKR simply didn't think about it, or because this AK
had never achieved its intended purpose (even if it caused the
physical result of the house blow-up). I personally tend towards the
second explanation, because two characters in two different books
stress the fact that the curse *failed* as an explanation of the
connection:

Dumbledore: (GoF, Ch. 30, p. 600 US) "Because you and he are connected
by the curse that failed".

Snape: (OotP, Ch. 24, p. 531) "The curse that failed to kill you seems
to have forged some kind of connection between you and the Dark Lord".

Note how JKR repeats "The Curse That Failed" in the same context. As
opposed to the *absence* of an event, exact recurring of words is not
likely to happen by coincidence or by mistake.


Lyn:
Third is the scene of his mother and LV contained in Harry's memory (I
will overlook that such a vivid and accurate recollection of such a
scene is not compatible with our real world understanding of episodic
memory at that age). Here we hear Lilly say "take me" and LV say step
aside silly girl. This points towards possession, prior to or instead
of death of young HP. (I assess this a moderately high standard of
proof as it is presented more as an event unfolding than as merely a
memory).


Neri:
Actually this is a very unreliable memory. For example, in a previous
post you argued that it is not likely that Voldy used an AK against
Harry in GH because Harry doesn't remember the words "Avada Kedavra"
being said. But Harry also doesn't remember hearing the AK incantation
that killed his mother. He remembers hearing his mother pleading and
Voldy answering her, and he remembers the green light of the AK curse,
so he must have been quite close to them, and yet he does not remember
Voldy saying the incantation that killed Lily. So the memory of this
event is inconsistent and unreliable, especially in regard to
absences, and it should not surprise us if Voldy also shot an AK
against Harry, even if Harry doesn't remember the incantation being
said or seeing the second green light.  

As I wrote here before, it is dangerous to base a theory on the
suspicious absence of events that, in the opinion of the theorist,
*should* have happened. I'm not saying such clues are worthless, and
I've used this type myself more than once, but I'd usually try to
corroborate a theory with additional and more reliable canon.

Neri