Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows discussion thread (SPOILERS)

[CallMeIshmael]

[ QUOTE ]
Harry had an interest in keeping Pettigrew alive. He could clear Sirius Black's name.

[/ QUOTE ]


Just to nitpick, but I think that since Sirius himself wanted Pettigrew dead, it is probably safe to assume that Pettigrew dead or alive, Sirius is now safe.

All they need is the body to confirm their story.

I think the act of letting him go was just about Harry's desire to not make murderers of his dad's friends.

[Fabian]

[ QUOTE ]
It seems like some of the international covers (at least the few that were just pictured) revealed a bit more of the story than I think most americans would like (I don't know how much people in other countries screamed about keeping the plot a secret)

[/ QUOTE ]

Believe me, not wanting the story before the book is released is not an american/british phenomenon. I'm guessing it was as big a deal here as it was in the US.

[Dilznoofus]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Harry had an interest in keeping Pettigrew alive. He could clear Sirius Black's name.

[/ QUOTE ]


Just to nitpick, but I think that since Sirius himself wanted Pettigrew dead, it is probably safe to assume that Pettigrew dead or alive, Sirius is now safe.

All they need is the body to confirm their story.

I think the act of letting him go was just about Harry's desire to not make murderers of his dad's friends.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think Sirius's desire to avenge James and Lily could easily overcome his wish to be vindicated by the wizarding world. Also, by revealing Pettigrew's dead body, wouldn't Sirius and Lupin be in big trouble for committing a fresh murder, even if it cleared Sirius of the original crime?

Or would they cover it up? Because I would think the incantation that reveals a wand's most recent spells would foil any attempt to pass it off as a killing in self-defense.

Edit: By "letting him go" you meant letting him live, right? Not setting him free, which was never their intent.

[CallMeIshmael]

[ QUOTE ]
I think Sirius's desire to avenge James and Lily could easily overcome his wish to be vindicated by the wizarding world. Also, by revealing Pettigrew's dead body, wouldn't Sirius and Lupin be in big trouble for committing a fresh murder, even if it cleared Sirius of the original crime?

Or would they cover it up? Because I would think the incantation that reveals a wand's most recent spells would foil any attempt to pass it off as a killing in self-defense.

[/ QUOTE ]


I doubt it would be difficult to sell that the danger of him escaping to voldy by transforming / he attacked them / some other excuse would be tough to sell, if killing him is at all illegal.

I mean, the people in the final battle arent going to azkaban. Obviously its different, but I wouldnt be surprised if killing known escaped death eaters isnt an offense.

[ QUOTE ]
Edit: By "letting him go" you meant letting him live, right? Not setting him free, which was never their intent.

[/ QUOTE ]

yeah, my bad.

[Dilznoofus]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I think Sirius's desire to avenge James and Lily could easily overcome his wish to be vindicated by the wizarding world. Also, by revealing Pettigrew's dead body, wouldn't Sirius and Lupin be in big trouble for committing a fresh murder, even if it cleared Sirius of the original crime?

Or would they cover it up? Because I would think the incantation that reveals a wand's most recent spells would foil any attempt to pass it off as a killing in self-defense.

[/ QUOTE ]


I doubt it would be difficult to sell that the danger of him escaping to voldy by transforming / he attacked them / some other excuse would be tough to sell, if killing him is at all illegal.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah I see what you're saying. I just figure without any evidence to the contrary that vigilante justice is no more tolerated in the wizarding world than in ours. Killing a Death Eater in a fight would be fine, of course, but killing one who's already subdued and defenseless? I would think the ministry would still consider that a punishable offense.

It would be hard to claim they were attacked at any point, because Pettigrew didn't have access to a wand. And if all he did was try to escape they wouldn't need to use killing curses to stop him.

[ QUOTE ]
I mean, the people in the final battle arent going to azkaban. Obviously its different, but I wouldnt be surprised if killing known escaped death eaters isnt an offense.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'd like to ask Rowling about this. I wouldn't rule it out, but I definitely would be surprised if the ministry had a policy that allowed for vigilantism when it comes to Death Eaters.

I'm not sure I understand your first sentence. The Death Eaters who fought and survived the battle are going to be sent there, aren't they? The good guys aren't, but that's because they were defending themselves in battle.

[CallMeIshmael]

sorry, I meant the good people who killed death eaters. They clearly arent going to azkaban. Yeah, the bad people are. Though, Im sure there would be problems again with people claiming to have being imperiused.


Personally, I dont believe Black would have gone to jail for killing Pettigrew, though its difficult to backup either side with direct evidence (AFAIK). I think they could argue that with his abilities, the chance of him slipping away was too great, and probably win. Id imagine that there is a fair bit of lenency when dealing with death eaters / murderers.



On a midly relted note, something that always was odd, was the lack of use of veritaserum in court cases. I cant remember if the reason why this isnt done is addressed, but seems like an easy decision to use.

[Dilznoofus]

[ QUOTE ]
sorry, I meant the good people who killed death eaters. They clearly arent going to azkaban. Yeah, the bad people are. Though, Im sure there would be problems again with people claiming to have being imperiused.


Personally, I dont believe Black would have gone to jail for killing Pettigrew, though its difficult to backup either side with direct evidence (AFAIK). I think they could argue that with his abilities, the chance of him slipping away was too great, and probably win. Id imagine that there is a fair bit of lenency when dealing with death eaters / murderers.



On a midly relted note, something that always was odd, was the lack of use of veritaserum in court cases. I cant remember if the reason why this isnt done is addressed, but seems like an easy decision to use.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah that's another can of worms. I don't think the issue is discussed anywhere in the books. Maybe they have a 5th Amendment type provision that protects defendants from having to incriminate themselves.

Also, with the way some wizards can modify memory it's easy to imagine some false confessions coming out of its use.

[Jazzy3113]

I am not sure if this has been discussed before but a brief question regarding deathly hallows:
Hermione claims to have modified her folk's memory and sent them to Australia in order to protect them. However, right after Bill's wedding when the three of them are in the coffee shop and have stunned the two Death Eaters Harry suggests modifying their memories to throw them off the trail. Hermoine claims that she is not sure how to perform a memory charm. Am i missing something?

[gharp]

[ QUOTE ]
I am not sure if this has been discussed before but a brief question regarding deathly hallows:
Hermione claims to have modified her folk's memory and sent them to Australia in order to protect them. However, right after Bill's wedding when the three of them are in the coffee shop and have stunned the two Death Eaters Harry suggests modifying their memories to throw them off the trail. Hermoine claims that she is not sure how to perform a memory charm. Am i missing something?

[/ QUOTE ]
JKR answers this in the chat that's linked above. I think she says that there's a difference between erasing someone's memory (the 'Obliviate' spell) and modifying/confusing their memory (like Hermione does with her parents).

[mattnxtc]

I know that there was some discussion of parsel tongue being used by Ron in this book...on a reread we see that harry used parseltongue to open up the locket. That means it probably would have been pretty fresh in Rons mind as to how he remembered it when back at Hogwarts.