Viewing the evidence

[Barry Arrowsmith]

--- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, Kathy King <kking0731 at g...> wrote:

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

Yeah, I know. It's not until one stops and does a little mental editing that
one realises just how much we rely on assumptions in the average 'canon' 
thread. And apart from necessary corrections of fact most threads end up
disagreeing about assumptions. To be expected, but there is the risk
that those assumptions might carry more weight than the sometimes slender
facts on which they are based truly justify. 

To those who posted corrections yesterday - no, I wasn't disappointed/irritated,
it was expected - especially when so many disparate snippets have to be 
gathered together. One wrong (date of Jo's Q&A), one questionable (Voldy 
riding Quirrell at the LC) was not a disaster, I expected more. And one can't 
discuss the facts until what they are is agreed
 
> 
> 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?
> 
> 

Heh.. An important judgement call.
Way back on TOL I opined that HP is not just about good vs evil, but that
family, bloodlines, personal agendas and personal animosities play an 
important part, that an individual's attitudes towards any of the social 
divisions probably pre-date Voldy - he was just the catalyst that allowed 
those with an existing DE disposition to become DEs. A prime example 
is Sirius/Snape.
They didn't hate each other because one was good and the other bad, it 
was much more personal. So are they capable of expressing objective (i.e.
unbiased) opinions about  each other? Doubtful. Given the mutual hatred,
would they lie or exaggate when talking about each other?  Possibly.
So it might be wise to squint sideways at any declarative statement each 
makes about the other. It can be applied to other characters, too. Fudge
might be ESE - or he may be a useless wanker who closes his eyes to
anything that could cause him problems.

It's this sort of thing that makes a 'secondary evidence' category useful.
The opinions and assumptions made by characters can, and in some cases
will, be prompted by personal factors, misunderstandings or deliberate lies
- and treating all secondary statements as unvarnished truth would be
asking for trouble. Which to believe? Ah, there's the rub. 
   
> 
> 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?
> 
>

No, we don't know, not with absolute certainty.
Only one person states that Voldy AK'd Harry - and that's Crouch!Moody.
How does he know? Was he there? A possibilty, certainly - but no evidence
as yet. And much of what we think we know about AKs seems contrary to the
output evidence, as well.

Now it may turn out that Voldy did AK Harry, but it's my contention that
the actual evidence makes such an assumption dubious, and if it was an
AK then Jo will need some pretty fancy footwork to explain away some
existing canon.
    
> 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.
> 
>

You're almost certainly right IMO.
But combine that with DD's 'plan' - just think of the possible implications! 
It leads straight to my old Puppetmaster!DD conclusions!

> 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?
> 
>

The transfer of powers needs an explanation for sure. Like how did the
transfer take place? Were they drifting round the room and Harry caught 'em
like he'd catch a cold? Did they feel lonely and so make a bee-line to the
nearest warm body? I have difficulty in accepting that stuff like Parseltongue
would be part of an AK - or any other cast spell, come to that. 
OK, I'm prejudiced by my own previous posts, but I still hanker for a touch,
physical or mental, to explain the necessary bridge.

As for knowing in advance that powers would be lost/transferred, it seems
to me that that would only be surmisable if it were a known effect of the
protective charm and/or the dissolution spell. How the eavesdropper could
have foreseen this defeats me.

Mind you, post-facto knowledge is a different story. It's surmise but DD and
the Ministry magical boffins were probably going over Harry with a toothcomb,
a magnifying glass, a Legilimans and a Pensieve during the missing 24 hours. 
For sure I can't accept that Harry spent that day disporting himself in the 
rubble at GH.  

> 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.
> 

I've a hunch we can get very close by using facts to eliminate what cannot be.
So long as Jo plays fair with the solution.....

Kneasy