[the_old_crowd] Viewing the evidence

[Kathy King]

Kneasy:



This time though, no assumptions, no presumptions, no theories, no
wishful thinking - or not until the problem has been laid out in
terms of canon. Strict and unbiased canon, mind - no giving one bit
more weight than another, no brushing an inconvenient snippet under
the carpet and hoping it'll go away; and definitely no pseudo-canon
of the ''it must have happened like this 'cos otherwise I can't make
it fit the way I want it to'' variety. Tough, I know.

Snow:



I agree that assumptions can blur the vision of the truth. An example I can
think of regarding GH, off the top of my head, is that James was in the
house when Voldemort killed him. We don't specifically know that James was
killed inside the house. Voldemort states that he killed James first then
Lily, we know that someone (a man) said take Harry and run, we know that
there were only two bodies discovered in the rubble (we aren't even told
whether or not the bodies were in a recognizable state). Curious isn't
it…only half of the information given. Got to go back to raw details, which
might include what we purposely haven't been told in order to get there…a
sort of negative canon.





Kneasy:



And it gets tougher - you lucky people! - because the intention is to
pose a wider question that may be applicable to all the outstanding
mysteries of HP. Can the GH event be explained solely by analysis of
the canon that is directly or demonstrably connected to it? Or is its
solution only possible by guessing that apparently irrelevant textual
detail (i.e. not obviously canonically linked to GH) is needed to
crack the puzzle? To put it bluntly - analytical logic or inspired
intuition - which is the best tool? This particular post offers
facts. What can be made of them? Intuitive thinking is put aside for
consideration at a later date. So let's look at it exactly as Jo
gives it to us - sort of as a Black Box problem.



>snipped throughout<


Just to make it a bit more complicated, we are presented with two
classes of canon evidence - that from persons (and an object) that
are known to have been present at the event (primary evidence) and
comments, opinions or assumptions offered by those who (on the canon
available so far) were most definitely not present (secondary
evidence). Mostly the secondary stuff is not particularly helpful,
nor does it offer much that can't be gleaned (or assumed) from the
primary evidence. Maybe that's its function - reinforcement of an
idea already planted or suspected. Or perhaps not.

While it's difficult to imagine an honest author fiddling primary
evidence, the same does not hold for secondary evidence - not to the
same degree, anyway. Particularly with a sneaky author addicted (self-
confessedly) to planting clues and red herrings. And what better way
than by getting a character to express an opinion or assumption as
fact, especially if we are not told how/why the character made that
assumption or determined that fact? It's a bit like hearsay; strictly
speaking it should be dis-allowed, but since this ain't a court of
law and since Jo must have had some reason for throwing it in, it
should be listed - while admitting that caveats loom large.

Snow:



Facts only get you so far in the world of Rowling. Little tid-bits of
information from characters (that many cannot decide to this day whether or
not they are trustworthy to give information) spewed throughout six novels.
Who do we trust to give us information: Snape, Lupin, Sirius, Dumbledore,
Fudge… This makes it quite difficult to pinpoint factual information because
if any of them were evil, there facts would need to be scrutinized, which
gives way to theorizing according to your favorite villain.  Dumbledore is
the most useful tool but then again he talks in rhymes and riddles (much
like his designer), usually giving a partial answer. So which facts do we
take into consideration because primary evidence is at the least hazy?



Kneasy:


Jo has said that Lily was not holding or touching Harry when she was
killed.
AKs travel in a straight line until they hit something. If it's
something alive, it dies without a mark on the body; if it's an
inanimate object, it sustains moderate damage.
According to Crouch!Moody there is no counter-curse, it cannot be
blocked magically. Yet he also says that Harry survived one. Both
statements cannot be true.
In the finale of the Ministry battle quite a few AKs get thrown. DD,
the originator of the protective magic for Harry, uses no shield
against them - they either miss and knock bits of statues and set a
kiosk afire, or something solid interposes itself between the curse
and DD. None bounced, even  when striking a charmed or magical object.
The protective magic appears to consist of two spells.
One is the part that prevented Voldy from touching Harry, negated
when Voldy uses Harry's blood in his resurrection stew. The other
protects Harry while he can call Privet Drive his home - and
according to DD was still active during HBP. Neither protected
against Voldy's wand when Peter was wielding it.
Voldy's basic plan, generally accepted by most fans - walk in, kill
the kid, walk out. This is contradicted by his words in the graveyard
"... a protection I admit I had not foreseen..... I could not touch
the boy. [...] but no matter, I can touch him now." And he does so.
PI  replays the physical effects of spells.
The wand PI is entirely blank for the attack on Harry's person.
There is no clue as to what bounced back on Voldy or what it was that
demolished the house.



Snow:



Do we know, Primary evidence, that Voldemort actually AK'ed Harry? The plan
was to kill Harry and the latest news (thanks to Dumbledore) to use his
death for his final Horcrux but did he actually attempt an AK? It seems so
since Harry remembers a bright green light but was that light an echo from
his mother's death in his eyes or was it inflicted on him?

I quite remember you doubting the AK on Harry yourself Kneasy some time
past. Everything that has been told to us is more or less of the hearsay
type. Voldemort did commit an AK at GH but it was on Lily (primary fact),
which of course did split his soul for the sixth time. Voldemort was totally
primed at the point of viewing Harry to make his next Horcrux, at least soul
wise. That soul piece went somewhere when he was disembodied but we know
that it would be unwise to purposely make a Horcrux with a living thing that
has its own mind and soul right?


Kneasy:


Q.
Why didn't Lily grab Harry and run?



Snow:

As you stated earlier, Lily wasn't holding Harry. Lily wasn't running she
was protecting. Lily's sacrifice shielded her son, which apparently she knew
otherwise standing up to Voldemort would have been worthless. Lily's actions
were not without previous thought or she would have run. We now know that it
is possible to do side along apparition so that would have been a choice
when the man's voice told her to run so why didn't she run unless she had
previous thoughts on the matter.



Kneasy:


Is the Privet Drive spell a replacement conjured by DD for a similar
charm that applied to GH? Or does it work wherever the closest living
blood relative resides?



Snow:



I'm fairly sure that one has been answered to some degree. Dumbledore said
that he took advantage of Lily's sacrifice and further used her blood
(relatives blood) to protect him. I also think he used a bit more than that
to protect Harry at his relatives but only Petunia and Dumbledore know about
that ;)



Kneasy:


Did Harry gain powers solely because Voldy lost them when
discorporating?



Snow:

Voldemort freely admits that when he was ripped from his body he was without
his powers, all of them, except for possession. Where else did they go and
by what means if it weren't for the attempt on Harry's life? Harry is now
the proud owner of equality to the Dark Lord. Oops keep forgetting you would
prefer canon:



"Consequently, he could not warn his master that to attack you would be to
risk transferring power to you – again marking you as his equal. " OOP pg843
The Lost Prophecy



How the heck they figured that out is beyond me. How did they know
(beforehand) or how would they suspect that if Voldemort attacked Harry he
would be at risk of any kind in transferring his powers, the prophecy…ugh?
We're right back to Dumbledore dismissing the prophecy confusion. How does
marking Harry as his equal automatically reference transferring power to
Harry when Dumbledore claims he doesn't hold to the prophecy? Dumbledore
claims it's all Voldemort's conception of the prophecy, doesn't he?



Kneasy:


If Harry had died at Quirrell's hands in PS/SS, would Voldy have got
his powers back?



Snow:

Of course, isn't that what would have made Diary!Tom stronger?



Kneasy:



Did taking Harry's blood return to Voldy powers that had previously
been transferred to Harry?



Snow:



No, I think that tie is a little stronger than blood.

Kneasy:



Jo's comments.
Jo has said very little about GH, though whether this is through
authorial  caution or because she hasn't been asked the right
questions at the right time is up for grabs. She suggests it's the
latter.



Snow:



Jo wont answer any questions forthright if it is something that pertains to
the meat of the story.


Kneasy:


In essence - the Black Box question - what magic was invoked against
Harry and why did it produce the results described in the text?



Snow:



So the Black Box is the 64,ooo dollar question? If anyone could answer this
question do you win the pot? You know, she's rich enough to really get her
audience pumped with that one. Seriously, if you want primary evidence, no
can do. If you want even secondary evidence I think it runs amiss. In short,
I think you found the question.

Kneasy:


Can the GH mystery be solved using the above canon with no need for
additional assumptions?



Snow:



Assuming may make an ass out of you and me but there is no way around it
given the umm…not given information.




Snow, trying my best to stay in the realm of real facts but man Kneasy, it's
not easy to reply without them.


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]