The timing seems to line up—the period of seventeen months between Draco’s birth and the Dark Lord’s defeat works well as “toward the end of the war,” and Draco never speaks of his mother as though he had any direct memory of her—except…
The problem is that Draco’s description of the sequence of events doesn’t seem to leave room for the Dark Lord still being corporeal at the time.
And Father couldn’t testify under Veritaserum because he was an Occlumens, he couldn’t even get Dumbledore put on trial, Father’s own allies didn’t believe him after Dumbledore just denied everything in public, but we know, the Death Eaters know, Father wouldn’t have any reason to lie about that, Father would want us to take revenge on the right person …
That doesn’t really sound like it happened in a state of open war, does it?
So if it happened shortly after the end of the war, it probably isn’t what Dumbledore is referring to there.
That doesn’t really sound like it happened in a state of open war, does it?
No. But it doesn’t have to. If we stipulate instead that Dumbledore was untouchable during the actual war for practical reasons (say, being one of the most powerful wizards alive and the de-facto commander of an opposing force, hence well protected), Lucius is left with excellent reasons to go after him through legal channels after the war’s over. Neither side seems to have been operating with the full blessing of the legal government, and terror tactics resulting in the deaths of innocents are exactly the kind of thing that a Ministry-run truth and reconciliation commission should be interested in.
It probably wouldn’t have started out that way, but your wife’s murder isn’t the kind of thing you just forget after a ceasefire gets signed. Given Draco’s age, the later, legal stages of the feud would be what he’d remember, and thus what he’d convey to Harry.
To me, it’s more like… if this happened while Voldemort was hanging around, why would anyone, even the Death Eaters, have to take Lucius’ word for anything? Sure, he can’t take Veritaserum cause he’s an Occlumens, but even if the Dark Mark can’t compel truthfulness there’s still the issue of uber-magic forensic techniques.
And it’s important to note that it’s not “a ceasefire gets signed”, but rather ‘Lucius barely squeaks out of a life sentence through copious bribery’. It seems like one way or another Lucius had to wait quite some time after war’s end to level these wild charges at Dumbledore, as doing so from the defendant’s stand would seem a rather pathetic attempt at misdirection. In other words, I highly doubt that “a Ministry-run truth and reconciliation commission” was involved at any stage of the process.
The timing seems to line up—the period of seventeen months between Draco’s birth and the Dark Lord’s defeat works well as “toward the end of the war,” and Draco never speaks of his mother as though he had any direct memory of her—except…
The problem is that Draco’s description of the sequence of events doesn’t seem to leave room for the Dark Lord still being corporeal at the time.
That doesn’t really sound like it happened in a state of open war, does it?
So if it happened shortly after the end of the war, it probably isn’t what Dumbledore is referring to there.
No. But it doesn’t have to. If we stipulate instead that Dumbledore was untouchable during the actual war for practical reasons (say, being one of the most powerful wizards alive and the de-facto commander of an opposing force, hence well protected), Lucius is left with excellent reasons to go after him through legal channels after the war’s over. Neither side seems to have been operating with the full blessing of the legal government, and terror tactics resulting in the deaths of innocents are exactly the kind of thing that a Ministry-run truth and reconciliation commission should be interested in.
It probably wouldn’t have started out that way, but your wife’s murder isn’t the kind of thing you just forget after a ceasefire gets signed. Given Draco’s age, the later, legal stages of the feud would be what he’d remember, and thus what he’d convey to Harry.
To me, it’s more like… if this happened while Voldemort was hanging around, why would anyone, even the Death Eaters, have to take Lucius’ word for anything? Sure, he can’t take Veritaserum cause he’s an Occlumens, but even if the Dark Mark can’t compel truthfulness there’s still the issue of uber-magic forensic techniques.
And it’s important to note that it’s not “a ceasefire gets signed”, but rather ‘Lucius barely squeaks out of a life sentence through copious bribery’. It seems like one way or another Lucius had to wait quite some time after war’s end to level these wild charges at Dumbledore, as doing so from the defendant’s stand would seem a rather pathetic attempt at misdirection. In other words, I highly doubt that “a Ministry-run truth and reconciliation commission” was involved at any stage of the process.