It’s possible. But he’d be risking someone flatly contradicting him the moment he made his statement about the testimony—“no, you didn’t listen correctly, she didn’t really say that”. And afterwards, of course, there’s no point for him to go back in time because he’s received evidence that she did not in fact testify as he wished.
Your scheme would work a lot better if he’d just listened to her testimony. Then he would know what he had to go back in time to cause, regardless of the way he used her testimony now. (grin)
It’s possible. But he’d be risking someone flatly contradicting him the moment he made his statement about the testimony—“no, you didn’t listen correctly, she didn’t really say that”. And afterwards, of course, there’s no point for him to go back in time because he’s received evidence that she did not in fact testify as he wished.
Your scheme would work a lot better if he’d just listened to her testimony. Then he would know what he had to go back in time to cause, regardless of the way he used her testimony now. (grin)
He would risk it the same way he risked not actually being found by a teacher.
Sure, that would be the smarter thing to do, but then it wouldn’t come as a surprise to the audience. This way it gives us and Harry a puzzle.