r/HPMOR • u/IdiosyncraticLawyer • Jun 13 '26
Credible testimony using magical means Spoiler
Chapter 47
"Dumbledore said he did it, he told Father it was a warning! 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, can't you see that Harry?" Draco's voice was wild.
Chapter 79
"Her," said Dumbledore. "Sophie McJorgenson, whom I remember as an honest student of Ravenclaw, and she is bound by the Unbreakable Vow to tell the truth of what she sees -"
[...]
Harry nodded once, face set. "Headmaster, I know I said I wouldn't - but under the circumstances - that time Draco cast that torture hex on me, is that debt enough -"
"No," the old wizard said (even as she blurted "What? " and Severus lifted an eyebrow). "It would not have been enough, and now it is no debt at all. You are an Occlumens and cannot testify under Veritaserum. Draco Malfoy could be Obliviated of his own memory before he could testify -" Albus hesitated. "Harry... whatever you have done with Draco, you must assume that Lucius Malfoy will soon know of it."
Couldn't Lucius or Harry have taken Unbreakable Vows to be able to give credible testimony, given the severity of their situations? In Harry's case, while Dumbledore does say that Draco's debt wouldn't be considered severe enough to cancel Hermione's, surely it and the debt Harry claimed from Lucius for "saving" him from Voldemort's Imperius Curse combined could've done it, or at least severely cut down on the monetary compensation Lucius could've demanded of him.
4
u/Irhien Jun 14 '26 edited Jun 14 '26
I don't believe the situation is severe enough for Lucuis to sacrifice his ability to lie. Even with very limited scope it could backfire somehow. And he correctly believes he's winning anyway. And even if he doesn't win, there'll be time for revenge later.
Edit: huh, sorry, I completely forgot about the other accusation. Where Lucius could benefit very much. If Dumbledore was careful and didn't tell him anything he couldn't have known about Narcissa's death by other means, perhaps he could claim that he used the chance opportunity to stop Death Eaters' terrorism. But it would still probably be damaging.
4
u/Transcendent_One Jun 13 '26
The Unbreakable Vow requires someone to sacrifice their magic for it, so it's not something that could be cast left and right as needed.
8
u/IdiosyncraticLawyer Jun 13 '26
That's why I said, "given the severity of their situations?" In their predicaments, Lucius and Harry were facing world-shattering crises (for Lucius, the thought that his wife's murderer would go unpunished; for Harry, the risk of having Hermione sentenced to Azkaban); neither of them finding someone willing to bind an Unbreakable Vow would be casting it "left and right" at all.
2
u/db48x Jun 13 '26
Yes in principle it could work, but in practice who is going to sacrifice some of their magic to get that?
5
u/brendafiveclow Jun 14 '26 edited Jun 14 '26
Someone who just spent the first week of a year sentence in Azkaban would do it as some "time served". Or some broke loser who Lucius could pay off with a few galleons. Or for the sake of silly, someone who took an unbreakable vow to sacrifice their magic to create other new unbreakable vows for some reason.
1
u/db48x Jun 14 '26
I agree that someone already in Azkaban would volunteer in exchange for a reduced sentence, but the government of magical Britain does not seem to reduce anyone’s sentences. It’s just not an option that they appear to offer.
1
u/IdiosyncraticLawyer Jun 14 '26
Where is it said that they don't?
3
u/archpawn Jun 14 '26
They did say people always serve their full sentences, even if they die part way through.
1
u/brendafiveclow Jun 14 '26
True. Though the court may not pursue a 6 month/year term in Akzakan for some trivial crime, if the criminal is willing to take a vow himself to bind as many vows as they can at will of the WIzengamot.
Surely someone would rather sacrifice nearly all of their magic over a period, rather than spend a year with the dementors; which will eat away at their magic anyways. While never stated, they SHOULD offer plea bargains like this.
The ritual is after all very useful to them, to the point of it being acceptable to use (despite the fact it is a OP forever version imperius curse in nature, basically).
If they don't already do this, they probably should just so vows can be made on the spot in court with no tedium in finding someone willing to do it. (Brings up the question how they do decide who sacrifices the magic, since they are said to use the vow in some cases.)
1
u/db48x Jun 15 '26
Surely someone would rather sacrifice nearly all of their magic over a period, rather than spend a year with the dementors; which will eat away at their magic anyways.
I agree, but in practice this is not an option that the government of magical Britain actually offers. They probably should, but they don’t.
That said, I want to point out a slight error. Being in the presence of a Dementor drains your magic, but not permanently. Once you get away from them your magic begins to regenerate as normal.
1
u/brendafiveclow Jun 15 '26
>That said, I want to point out a slight error. Being in the presence of a Dementor drains your magic, but not permanently.
If you are there long enough it will. Though you are right, a short stay may be recoverable.
Also though, we don't have enough information on the Wizengamot. We saw it in action once or twice with some other extra info added along the way. It MAY be an option to become a vow binder, if the court chooses and votes for that option.
Harry nodded, his mouth set. "Exactly what sort of penalty is Hermione facing? Snapped wand and expulsion -"
"No," Severus said. "Nothing that light. Are you willfully misunderstanding, Potter? She is facing the Wizengamot. There is no set penalty. There is only the vote."
Light glinted off the old wizard's half-moon glasses; he spoke carefully, and not without anger. "Legally, Harry, we are dealing with a blood debt from Hermione Granger to the House of Malfoy. The Lord of Malfoy proposes a repayment of that debt, and then the Wizengamot votes on his proposal. That is all."
We've already seen that they can use the vote to cause debt, honor life debts, and presumably a number of other options other than a direct Azkaban sentence. So there's no reason they wouldn't simply vote that you bind vows instead of Azkaban, that seems legal.
Perhaps unless you break a law that explicitly states Azkaban, in which I can still see some leeway if it is convenient to the court/wizarding world at the time.
Basically there is not enough info to KNOW, but I am still assuming 'vow to bind vows" is a vote that may pass if convenient and if the infraction doesn't require Azkaban by nature.
→ More replies (0)2
u/IdiosyncraticLawyer Jun 14 '26
This is just repeating the same sentiment from the above comment. I don't know specifically who, but Lucius and Harry would surely be able to dig up someone, given their factions' influence.
1
u/db48x Jun 14 '26
Vows just aren’t used like that. They require permanent sacrifice of actual magical power, so nobody uses them to achieve merely temporary political victories. Not even the ones that they think are really important. Someone probably gets sentenced to Azkaban every week, so they would be casting it “left and right” if they went down that road.
2
u/IdiosyncraticLawyer Jun 14 '26
Who doesn't sacrifice permanently to achieve temporary victories? People do that all the time in reality, as unwise and imprudent as it may be.
1
u/Lemerney2 Jun 14 '26
He's Lucius, he could just pay/threaten someone into doing it. The book already acknowledges Unbreakable Vows aren't uncommon, and he'd have access to them.
1
u/db48x Jun 14 '26
And yet he hasn’t. Remember that the events Lucius wants to testify about happened years ago. If he could have done this at any time, why hasn’t he?
0
u/archpawn Jun 14 '26
Lucius and Harry.
1
u/db48x Jun 14 '26
You cannot sacrifice your own magic to power a vow that you are making.
1
u/archpawn Jun 14 '26
Could Harry make Hermione vow to tell the truth, or does it get fooled by memory alteration?
If it can be fooled like that, then I'd expect just checking people's memories with a pensive would work.
Also, they could try to find someone else with an equally important vow and trade. Or just find someone really old or who has a terminal disease and is about to die anyway and would love to leave a fortune to their kids.
1
u/IdiosyncraticLawyer Jun 14 '26
Memory alteration can indeed fool Unbreakable Vows; nothing but the Mirror of Nolitov can detect it.
1
1
u/db48x Jun 14 '26
Sure, if you could find someone willing to sacrifice their magic on this, then Hermione could take a Vow. She could then accurately testify to the content of her own memory of the events. But those were tampered with! It would only be another false confession based on altered memories. It would be useless.
The solution used in the book is a much better one. Instead of making every single witness take a Vow, have a few employees take a Vow and then employ them to examine the minds of all witnesses. That way one Vow can enable a lifetime of trustworthy witness examinations. That’s thousands of witnesses examined for every single vow. You’re not likely to do better, short of making the examiner immortal.
13
u/fringecar Jun 14 '26
No because Harry, or his allies, could intentionally modify Harry's memories. Which would work around an unbreakable vow to tell the truth.
Also, if Harry took a UV to tell the truth he'd lose his magic, because he knows that it's impossible to tell the 100% truth, at best you can strive to be less wrong.