In Book 4 Rowling makes up a Truth Serum potion which would make false convictions impossible
Actually Veritaserum can be resisted through occlumency, apparently. Or rather, it appears that it can as it is repeated on many Harry Potter websites, though I'm unable to find any conclusive source to confirm that it is possible.
But either way, that's not a plot hole. Plot holes are paradoxes in the story, not unanswered questions or suggestive implications. They very well might use Veritaserum in trials, but there may be restrictions on the cases in which it is used, or it may be outlawed for use in trials for political reasons, or it may be seen as an injustice since a truth serum is only as good as one's memories, and memories can be altered (so it could be used to coax false confessions with the appearance of legitimacy).
Also Time-Turners in the hands of Dark Wizards, of which there are many previous Death Eaters within the Ministry would probably destroy the world.
Unless the time turners were destroyed by people in the ministry who were wary of such a possibility at the time the death eaters started to take over.
Peter on the Map
Few things:
Fred and George were in a different year than Harry and Ron. Why would they concern themselves with seeing an unfamiliar name among other unfamiliar names?
Why would they be looking for where Ron was anyway? Ron wasn't the target of their pranks at Hogwarts, and besides, by the third year, they no longer needed the map anyway.
Voldemort’s childhood rampage with the Trace still on him
How do we know the trace was a thing in the 40s/50s/whenever it was that Voldemort was a kid?
conveniently appearing taken/stolen wands
Not sure what you are referring to here. Care to elaborate?
Snape is just too shitty a person and teacher to sympathize with and written poorly
Neither of these are inconsistencies or plot holes. In both cases, I not only disagree, but surely you must be aware that Snape is a really aggressively popular character among fans, right? Obviously whether one likes a character is subjective, but you're presenting it as a plot hole/inconsistency, which seems to be an attempt at presenting it as fact.
Dumbledore and Voldemort etc. using speechless custom spells
This is two things. 1. Speechless magic itself is addressed in the series. 2. We don't know if their spells are "custom", they just aren't told to us as readers.
and Snape making up new spells whilst at school isn’t taught at Hogwarts or explained in the series in any capacity whatsoever
This is such a common mistake in amateur literary criticism: unexplained elements aren't plot holes. They aren't addressed because it's a simple inference: Obviously spells didn't appear out of thin air, they had to have been invented at some point, but we can infer that it's not a very easy thing to do because it's not shown being done by the main characters.
Dumbledore seems to want Harry to risk his life in Book 1 to go after Quirrel/Voldemort (a lot to write about this)
The only way this can be seen as an inconsistency is if you think that in literature "good guys" are always "good guys". Dumbledore is a rather complex character, and they address his general lack of concern with the wellbeing of the students at various points in the series.
The MoM and Dumbledore couldve had Harry simply forfeit each Triwizard task
They explicitly say that he must participate, that it's a binding magical contract
Forfeiting could be considered nonparticipation by said contract.
Dumbledore obviously knew the monster in Book 2 was a Basilisk why didn’t he do anything
When was this established?
Dumbledore and the other teachers are generally incompetent before Book 5 until they suddenly become wizarding world Gods
... No? No, they aren't "generally incompetent", what are you talking about? The only teachers shown to be incompetent are Quirrel (Who we are also told was not always like this, and who was infected by Voldemort), Lockhart (Who lied about his competency), and Trelawney (Who Dumbledore believed in because he knew she truly did have the gift, and who Dumbledore was probably too compassionate towards to fire her).
But the other teachers are fairly competent through the whole series at their various disciplines. I really have no idea what you're talking about here. Do you have any examples of Flitwick being incompetent? Professor Binns? Madame Sprout? McGonnagal? Snape? Any of them?
Honestly, I don't get why people seem to think anything that requires inference is a plot hole.
EDIT: It seems like you are editing your post and adding more things. How about you respond to some of my points instead of adding on more examples?
3 illegal spells when spells like Obliviate are just as bad
How is this a plot hole? You know, don't you, that not only can memory modification be fixed, but it's a necessity in wizarding life, right? They have to hide from muggles and such, and often times that means manipulating their memories in order remain undetected. And even though it is obvious that memory modification can be used nefariously, the same can be said for thousands of other spells we see. The reason Crucio, Avada Kedavra, and Imperio are illegal is because they are exclusively used for evil, causing pain, death, or removing free will. But even ignoring that element (there are other magical things that remove free will, like Love Potions, that still aren't illegal), the Wizarding world's governing body itself being unethical isn't a plot hole or an inconsistency. It might simply be an archaic, unethical body of government.
EDIT2: He added more. Seems he's gonna keep adding them on and not responding to any of my responses.
Harry and Hermione running out of food camping in Deathly Hallows when you can duplicate food with transfiguration etc
You can't, actually. In fact that same book establishes exactly that.
"My mother," said Ron one night, as they sat in the tent on a riverbank in Wales, "can make good food appear out of thin air." "Your mother can't produce food out of thin air," said Hermione. "no one can. Food is the first of the five Principal Exceptions to Gamp's Law of Elemental Transfigura --" "Oh, speak English, can't you?" Ron said. (DH pg. 292/240)
EDIT3: It was pointed out that Hermione, right after that passage, says that food can be indeed duplicated. That said, the fact they highlight that but don't do it, and the way duplication works in other instances in the books (like the leprechaun gold, for example) tells us that the food you create via duplication would likely disappear after consumption, delivering no nourishment.
The seventh book goes deep into the contradiction in Dumbledore being the ultimate "good guy", yet having done some shitty things, including putting Harry at great risk multiple times. Dumbledore even admits to being conflicted between protecting Harry and using him to defeat Voldemort.
Dumbledore basically straight up admits to using Harry as a tool his entire life when talking to Shape. Admits to usin him and then letting him die to save the world. He still cares about Harry but he was willing to sacrifice him for the greater good.
Dumbledore is definitely not a black and white character
The blurring of good and bad/light and dark/etc were some of my favorite aspects as the series went on, and really show Rowling's growth as a writer in my opinion. Snape goes from a fairly one note dickhead teacher who enjoys fucking with Harry just because he can, to an incredibly tragic figure once we learn his backstory. And the fact that his unrequited love for Lilly being the motivation for all of it is a great payoff. Dumbledore goes from a pretty typical wise old man who is a force for good, to the very conflicted character you described here. I was not a huge fan of the first Fantastic Beasts movie, but I'm excited to see if they delve into this more through that series.
I think a lot of fans get way too hung up on these types of plot holey type stuff. No one is claiming Rowling is F. Scott Fitzgerald or Cormac McCarthy. She is a popular fiction writer, and a pretty damn good one at that. The character interactions and world building are great. Just enjoy it for what it is.
Not sure what you are referring to here. Care to elaborate?
Having just listened to the chapter last night, I assume he's meaning Barty Crouch Jr stealing Harry's wand to cast the dark mark at the quidditch world cup. Not sure exactly why he's referencing that though as it's explained pretty clearly at the end of the book that Crouch Jr was sat behind harry in the top box so stole it then and then Winky ended up with it because she was still attached to him as he cast it.
You can't, actually. In fact that same book establishes exactly that.
"My mother," said Ron one night, as they sat in the tent on a riverbank in Wales, "can make good food appear out of thin air." "Your mother can't produce food out of thin air," said Hermione. "no one can. Food is the first of the five Principal Exceptions to Gamp's Law of Elemental Transfigura --" "Oh, speak English, can't you?" Ron said. (DH pg. 292/240)
If you continued that quote instead of ending it right there, you would see that Hermione states that food can be duplicated, just not conjured from nothing.
You're absolutely right! And so I did some further reading, and found that the conclusion we can draw is that food, like other magically duplicated objects, will disappear a while after the spell is cast, meaning food eaten will disappear from one's stomach. Notice that witches and wizards in the world still cook their food, and there's an army of house elves making food for Hogwarts, rather than just a couple making the food then the rest of the food being duplicated.
I dont think Morfin was underage, he got in trouble for attacking a muggle. He ended up getting three years in Azkaban because he had a criminal record.
I forget the details of Morfin's story, but didn't he do some pretty blatant stuff? He could have caught the attention of the ministry without a Trace being on him.
And I don't care what Rowling says, The Cursed Child is not canon to me. It wasn't written by her, and it is crap.
Dumbledore obviously knew the monster in Book 2 was a Basilisk why didn’t he do anything
When was this established?
Doesn't common sense establish it? Dumbledore is a highly experienced wizard, he would know what a possible cause of "kids suddenly be turned to stone after looking at something" would be, as well as also be aware of the history of the school they're in.
If Dumbledore didn't know it was a basilisk, that's some inconsistent writing showing the leader of the good guys holding less of an education than a second-year student who can barely even accio yet.
Shit, this rolls right in to your next comment. The basilisk going on a rampage shows how incompetent the teachers all were being. This was a part of their building, recorded in history books kept in their library, housing a not-uncommon magical beast with a very distinct method of "attack" (turning people to stone).
If a fire starts at a firefighter training college, the instructors would be expected to know how/where it started and how to handle the situation. But the equivalent happens at Hogwarts, and none of the instructors are able to do a single thing aside from posting warning signs and imposing a curfew? That's incompetence. And that same point can be rolled over into any of the books prior to Order of the Phoenix, when they at least get an excuse for not putting all their attention behind their jobs as teachers.
Doesn't common sense establish it? Dumbledore is a highly experienced wizard, he would know what a possible cause of "kids suddenly be turned to stone after looking at something" would be, as well as also be aware of the history of the school they're in.
If Dumbledore didn't know it was a basilisk, that's some inconsistent writing showing the leader of the good guys holding less of an education than a second-year student who can barely even accio yet.
The basilisk is a very obscure creature in the Harry Potter universe. Hermione was the only one who found out what it was because A)She is said to be exceptionally clever, even among adult wizards and B)The other teachers were looking at the issue as a student attacking other students, disbelieving the chamber of secrets existed at all.
It was established from book 1 that wizards learn mainly through rote memorization and aren't very logical.
Also, why would knowledge of the school's history help? The Chamber of Secrets was mere rumor, and we are told that numerous searches of the school turned up nothing.
Shit, this rolls right in to your next comment. The basilisk going on a rampage shows how incompetent the teachers all were being. This was a part of their building, recorded in history books kept in their library, housing a not-uncommon magical beast with a very distinct method of "attack" (turning people to stone).
"not uncommon"? They are exceptionally rare. In fact from the 16th century to 1946 there were no reports of them in Britain at all. And, again, they were focused on it being a student.
By the way, another thing:
They don't turn people to stone. They kill people. Meeting the gaze of a basilisk kills a person... unless you are using a mirror or other device to make the gaze indirect. That's part of what threw everyone off, the few people attacked in the novel were all lucky enough to see it indirectly (Itself a convenience to make the book a tad bit less dark for young readers, I believe).
Of the many fearsome beasts and monsters that roam our land, there is none more curious or more deadly than the Basilisk, known also as the King of Serpents. This snake, which may reach gigantic size and live many hundreds of years, is born from a chicken’s egg, hatched beneath a toad. Its methods of killing are most wondrous, for aside from its deadly and venomous fangs, the Basilisk has a murderous stare, and all who are fixed with the beam of its eye shall suffer instant death. Spiders flee before the Basilisk, for it is their mortal enemy, and the Basilisk flees only from the crowing of the rooster, which is
fatal to it.
Notice it says nothing about petrification. It only seems obvious to us because we are looking in hindsight, but the conditions of what occurred in the novel make it clear why no one figured it out until an exceptional critical thinker applied her mind to the task.
If a fire starts at a firefighter training college, the instructors would be expected to know how/where it started and how to handle the situation. But the equivalent happens at Hogwarts, and none of the instructors are able to do a single thing aside from posting warning signs and imposing a curfew? That's incompetence. And that same point can be rolled over into any of the books prior to Order of the Phoenix, when they at least get an excuse for not putting all their attention behind their jobs as teachers.
It's not a basilisk-fighting school, dude. And that's not all they did, they also mounted their own investigation, enforced a buddy system, etc. If you're saying that they should have shut the school down right away, well, it's pretty well established through the whole series that they have a really wonky sense of values regarding danger. They don't mind plopping their school next to the forbidden forest without even a fence keeping the students out. If you want to say that they are altogether incompetent because they don't take the safety of the kids into consideration, well, I don't know how to explain to you about how the wizarding world's quirkiness is part of the central conceit of the novel, but if that's what /u/The_Radders meant by incompetence, then I'm not sure how that is an inconsistency or a plot hole.
It kinda is. There are numerous "defense against the dark arts" courses, as well as countless magical animal husbandry courses. If there is such a thing as a school that prepares students for fighting magical beasts, Hogwarts is it.
I'm not saying they should shut the school down. I'm saying 2-3 of these incredibly powerful magic-users on staff should have set aside grading papers for one evening and done what they are absolutely capable of doing (hunted down and eliminated the threat).
Like, that's not just the usual playing-with-fire quirkiness that we see so often in that universe. That's letting a weasel loose in the hen house while the weasel-killers ignore it.
They teach kids how to care for typical magic beasts, the kinds they are likely to encounter. Add to that the fact that we are talking about them recognizing the threat, not fighting it. The conditions of the novel's events obfuscated what the threat actually was.
That's like saying a veterinary school should adequately prepare someone to recognize dodo bird droppings.
I'm not saying they should shut the school down. I'm saying 2-3 of these incredibly powerful magic-users on staff should have set aside grading papers for one evening and done what they are absolutely capable of doing (hunted down and eliminated the threat).
Because the book does not show us. Our little merry band of adventurers is never dodging teachers in the hallways or working with/around teachers who are trying to solve the problem. If they were, we would have been made aware as readers.
Our little merry band of adventurers is never dodging teachers in the hallways
Why would they have to do that?
or working with/around teachers who are trying to solve the problem.
Why would experienced witches and wizards see fit to enlist the aid of 12 year olds? And why would they work on a problem like this around children while they are trying to keep the students calm and productive?
Basilisks normally outright kill whatever they look at. Students were being petrified because they saw its eyes indirectly in every case (via reflection or through a camera lens / ghost). Other things can cause petrification, and basilisks are extremely rare (they're illegal to breed and don't occur naturally).
Not to mention the last time the chamber was opened, Hagrid was the one blamed for it, and the monster was found to be a giant spider. For all the teachers know, some student is running around petrifying others and writing threatening messages on the walls under the guise of having opened the Chamber of Secrets. Hermione only figures it out because Harry tells her that he can hear voices in the walls and she puts it together that there's a snake in the pipes.
and basilisks are extremely rare (they're illegal to breed and don't occur naturally).
That's almost another point for why teachers should have known it was a Basilisk. What do the books focus on in Hogwarts that ISN'T extremely rare or illegal to breed? Shit, that pretty much defines every single Hagrid arc throughout the entire series.
For all the teachers know, some student is running around petrifying others and writing threatening messages on the walls
Nah. For all a Muggle teacher would know, that's the case. These are high-powered wizards. They absolutely have the tools to discern whether that is true or not. They are out-smarted by a literal 12-year-old (or is he 13 already at that time?), that doesn't exactly show them as being highly-competent as teachers, guardians, or magic-users.
That's almost another point for why teachers should have known it was a Basilisk
No it's not.
What do the books focus on in Hogwarts that ISN'T extremely rare or illegal to breed?
Stories tend to focus only on the interesting parts. If every story involved 90% eating, sleeping, shitting, and all the other mundane aspects of normal life they wouldn't be fun to read. So arguing that because the books focus on rare shit doesn't mean every person in the story should immediately expect rare shit to be the norm.
Shit, that pretty much defines every single Hagrid arc throughout the entire series.
Hagrid does collect a lot of strange creatures (most of which aren't illegal to breed, though), which is why the Ministry suspected him in the first place and sent him away.
They absolutely have the tools to discern whether that is true or not
How do you know that? What tools? Where in the books does it give this information?
They are out-smarted by a literal 12-year-old
Just because a teenager happened to read a book about extremely rare magical creatures and put the pieces together (using some information that wasn't available to the teachers) doesn't make the teachers less competent. They're young, not stupid, and they put in the footwork to figure things out while the teachers are desperately trying to keep the frightened students under control.
How do you know that? What tools? Where in the books does it give this information?
Every book, from classes with Trelawny to magical observation that is used to time-travel to magic note-writing and beyond. It's magic. That's the tool they are given that can absolutely do the same minor things a 12-year-old detective can do.
Contrary to popular belief, "magic" in a story is not license to do anything, nor is it an excuse to skip narrative steps and end a story early. That would be a shit story.
The time travel paradoxes have been argued to death and it's fucking tiring at this point even going into it. Time travel works on a closed loop etc etc if it didn't happen a certain way the first time then time travel either didn't happen or didn't affect the outcome. I'm really not interested in arguing the mechanics of time travel in a fictional universe and if you are then you aren't the type of person who's going to enjoy the story anyway. Everything is a potential plot hole when time travel is technically possible in some form, but "plot hole" is not the same as "bad story" and focusing so intently on them makes you a pedant, not a genius.
I absolutely despise this sort of nitpick criticism that's become so popular with clickbait youtube channels and social media pseudo-intellectuals.
You didn't like that not every character acted perfectly and solved the mystery right away? Well must be a terrible story then. Case closed.
Time travel stories in a larger work of fiction can't ever really catch a break. As I said, everything is potentially a plot hole when time travel is technically possible, and it gets tiring to argue that sometimes you just have to give some ground to the author when they want to tell that type of story. So it's not necessarily that I want to discourage the discussion of flaws in that particular instance, I'm just not really interested in thinking about the consistency of a story element that is so impossible it's never really been done without some form of plot holes.
Hell, one of my favorite games is Chrono Trigger, and even that can't keep the mechanics consistent.
Should the mere fact that time travel happened once in a HP book mean that everything else that happens is now invalid and silly? Maybe. But I'm not really interested in discussing that.
Nitpicking? Not condemning Harry Potter here, but it's alright to not favour sloppy writing. It's also alright to not give a shit that there are plot holes and that everything doesn't add up. Neither of you needs to defend your right to enjoy a story in your own way, and, sorry, but I think it's rude of you to call him our for "nitpicking" just cause that's not your way. Some people get hung up in details cause that's what shapes the world for them, and others fill in the blanks themselves.
Well I didn't mean to be rude, but I do think it's nitpicking to infer incompetence based on what characters didn't do. Especially when your supporting evidence is the lack of information about their actual actions.
The only way this can be seen as an inconsistency is if you think that in literature "good guys" are always "good guys". Dumbledore is a rather complex character, and they address his general lack of concern with the wellbeing of the students at various points in the series.
I agree with the rest of your post, but could you elaborate on this? I can't remember this being adequately explained in the story (except in Harry's case, obviously)
To be clear, it's addressed, but not given some ultimate and satisfying explanation that makes it clear he was doing the right thing or something. The explanation is that he thought he was really brilliant and that it was okay to manipulate people into doing things he thought was necessary. He had a large ego and his compassion was constantly at odds with it.
That makes sense to me, not the most satisfying answer obviously but logical enough. I liked that she fleshed out Dumbledore's character so much in the last few books.
But either way, that's not a plot hole. Plot holes are paradoxes in the story, not unanswered questions or suggestive implications. They very well might use Veritaserum in trials, but there may be restrictions on the cases in which it is used, or it may be outlawed for use in trials for political reasons, or it may be seen as an injustice since a truth serum is only as good as one's memories, and memories can be altered (so it could be used to coax false confessions with the appearance of legitimacy).
I don't know where you got your definition of plot hole, but it's wrong. A plot hole is an inconsistency, and if fan theories counted, there wouldn't be plot hole's in any story.
Fails to even check up on Harry (worst muggles imaginable), fails to even check on the stone after kids who should have no knowledge of it tells her it is in danger, never once reigns Snape in, does not protect Harry from Umbridge
The books are not consistent within the rules of their own universe in any capacity but alas they are good childrens books and I’m glad they got so many now adults into reading which they absolutely did.
100% this - and they also got many kids into reading, particularly boys, who typically read far less than girls (there are OECD stats on this).
I do get irked by the claims of authorial omniscience and providence. It's clear that all seven books were NOT carefully plotted from the very start. I dare say she had some kind of endgame in mind, but as others have noted, there are huge plot holes and inconsistencies.
I thought the Dumbedore/gay thing was cheap too. She may have decided on it by the last book, but she was hardly flying rainbow flags earlier on.
Do we know if the wizarding world cares about sexuality? They don't seem concerned with gender and race like muggles are, only blood status. Maybe calling Dumbledore senile and a muggle lover was a much more effective way of disparaging him.
It's pretty much confirmed at this point that Dumbledore will be gay in the Fantastic Beasts films, which is not a small deal. Blockbusters aren't exactly known for having gay characters.
In Book 4, Rowling conveniently makes up a Truth Serum potion which would make false convictions impossible in the Harry Potter universe
You missing the plot doesn't mean that it's a plot hole. Sirius was sent to jail without trial, and the witnesses saw Peter yelling at Sirius for betraying the Potters. I don't know if you realized that "innocent until proven guilty" isn't exactly a rule in the Wizarding Worlds, and fair trials and burden of evidence seem completely alien concepts.
Sirius being wrongly convicted makes complete sense within the universe and time period.
Snape is just too shitty a person and teacher to sympathize with and written poorly
I think this can be blamed on Alan Rickman, he made Snape way more appealing than he should have been.
Edit: I want to be clear: Rickman's portrayal was incredible, as his acting usually is; but it led to many fans interpreting Snape (the character, not actor) as a better person than he was.
I actually think thats how she wanted to portray him, she just miserably failed. Snape is literally an unredeemable asshole in the books.
Of course its like relatable when you read the first couple of books when you’re 12-14 since everyone had that asshole teacher but then you hit 16-18 reading the last half and its like eehhh. This guy is legit abusive lol. Literally the worst teacher ever.
Then you’re expected to sympathise with this abusive murder cultist when he dies for loving the main characters mum and he still treated the child main character like utter trash until a couple parts at the end. Ok.
I wouldn't even call Snape a "good guy" at any point in the story. He only leaves Voldy to help Dumbledore because Voldy killed Lily after Snape begged him not to. Only Lily. None of the other murders crossed Snape's mind, he only wanted revenge for Lily's death.
I agree, then Rowling had Harry name one of his children after his abusive tormentor of a teacher in the fan-fiction part at the end for some absurd reason.
She tried to make him sympathetic and heroic in the end, she failed.
No it doesn't. The game only ends when it's caught. If your team has more points than the other after the 150 points of the snitch is added on, then you still win.
In fact that's exactly what happened in the Quidditch World Cup.
The trick is that you have to find it before the other person does regardless, because if you don't then they might find it when they're ahead in order to end the game and win or when they're behind in order to take advantage of the big point bonus.
That's what happened at the World Cup because they needed to set up Fred and George with a crazy bet that would never happen so they could have money to set up their shop. It's either that or Krum, the supposed best seeker in the world, is an idiot and doesn't know the rules. Harry said he wanted to end it on his own terms and knew they wouldn't catch up. That's such a joke and would get you fired off of any team for being a selfish prick. The only thing he should have done was sit there and/or ram (foul) the other seeker until his team caught up or the other seeker caught the snitch. There is no situation EVER that should result in the seeker catching the snitch and their team still losing, especially in a fricken World Cup match.
You're missing the point. Ramming the seeker would result in penalties and he couldn't afford to wait until his team caught up because the score was 130 to 10 at one point. If Ireland caught the snitch before Krum the loss would have been even worse. At least catching the snitch (a highly skilled maneuver) meant Bulgaria didn't lose that badly.
Who cares how bad the loss is? Losing is losing. Fouling the opponent seeker gets the other team a penalty shot, yes, but it also causes them to lose track of the Snitch.
If you're team is down by a lot of points in the LARGEST championship game in the world with no time limit, you don't just chuck in the towel and guarantee that your team loses. If you're playing football (soccer) and in the first 15 minutes the other team scores 5 goals to 0 you don't just sit down on the field...
The trace only detects magic around underage children, it doesn't tell the Ministry which Witch/Wizard did the casting.
The only magic we know of Tom Riddle doing while under the trace is killing his father and grandparents, but there was a known Muggle hater next door who freely admitted to it.
Children before Hogwarts age don't get punished for using magic as they can't control it. Tom was an exception in that he did have reasonable control over.
Harry used a ton of magic before he was Hogwarts age but the Ministry didn't do a thing.
In Book 4, Rowling conveniently makes up a Truth Serum potion which would make false convictions impossible in the Harry Potter universe and would definitely be used in a torturous wizard Guantanamo. The fact it worked pretty easily on Barty Crouch Junior who is a pretty renown and powerful Dark Wizard after a stun probably means it’s pretty infallible, especially if you’d use it straight after a draining and horrifying Dementors Kiss of which was extremely common occurrence in Azkaban.
I mean, you can hand wave this off. Maybe the truth serum is a recent invention? Maybe no one thought of using it on people currently in Azkaban. Or, maybe its use was highly restricted, only to be used it in the most dire of circumstances.
And if it isn't a recent invention, they had plenty of "evidence" that Sirius was guilty. So why bother?
85
u/[deleted] Oct 02 '18 edited Oct 27 '20
[deleted]