It is exactly as ridiculous as I made it out to be. Anyone with even a passing understanding of law and trials would scratch their heads at the use of the word "trial" in relation to that scene.
1) The suspect is a 12 year old girl. Said girl has godly amounts of evidence for good character, is an obvious target for Dark Magic users trying to get revenge on her, and has a huge (though shallow) fanbase due to her fame. She is nonetheless kept in solitary confinement for months on end, and Harriet isn't even allowed to see any kind of legal counsel.
2) Things like the Imperious Curse and possession are common, notorious, and understood enough to make any argument of "she's obviously guilty" overt bullshit to anyone you could ask.
3) Dozens of people, including many aurors, see Harriet's eyes being a bright red color during the incident. Aurors would know that this likely indicates possession. The fact that Harriet—during the incident—tried to kill Ginny without hesitation (a good friend of hers, an easily confirmable fact), but embraced and collapsed against her almost immediately after some overt, incredibly significant magical event of some kind seemed to break Harriet free of the possession.
4) There is neither a defense nor a prosecution in the trial. The jury is also the judge, blatant and disruptive violations of even the most basic of legal protocols are completely ignored, even when such violations are about as blatantly obvious, significant, and relevant as possible, and there are no witnesses or testimonies.
5) Dumbledore never needed to bring any kind of evidence. If, after months of keeping Harry in solitary confinement, they couldn't even be bothered to actually listen (because there's no way that dozens of witnesses and aurors wouldn't event comment on the obvious, major facts they witnesses—like, hey, GLOWING RED EYES ON A TWELVE YEAR OLD GIRL THAT WERE ONLY THERE FOR THE DURATION OF THE INCIDENT) to any kind of testimony, witnesses, evidence, etc, before sentencing a twelve-year-old girl to one of the most horrific and cruel executions possible, without chance for appeal or any case to be made.
If the Wizengamot never even bothered to listen....no, if the Wizengamot actively ignored the mountains of blatant, obvious evidence from dozens of witnesses, including people at the center of the event and specialist law-enforcers OF THEIR OWN GOVERNMENT being screamed repeatedly to their faces, then they're all Complete Monsters. And lazy ones, at that.
6) Those 50 people you mentioned? I'm surprised none of them said a word about the insane, government sponsored act of brutal execution of an innocent 12 year old girl without even a trial. Or launched a coup right then and there. And yeah, it was maybe 50 people total. Unless the Wizengamot is at least 300 people large, or something.
7) Erm...no, he didn't need to wait for Harriet's eyes to do anything. There wasn't a case against her, at least not one that could stand up to even a cursory glance. The situation and facts were already absurdly obvious and overt; it would be impossible for anyone in the Wizengamot to not know any of the major testimonies/evidence/signs that very clearly destroyed any case against her...for MONTHS. For Dumbledore to point any of it out is irrelevant. They all already knew, and quite well at that.
(Kangaroo Court: A rather infamous example; the Wizengamot is several times worse than its canon counterpart. It skips past "farce of a trial" and goes straight into "they're all complete morons with no self-respect, integrity, or care towards their own traditions, rules, morality, or curiosity." Thankfully, Dumbledore arrives, points out how insanely stupid they all are and the entire basis for the trial is in less than ten seconds, and they reluctantly rule—unanimously—that Harriet isn't guilty. No, really. He talks for ten seconds, presents no new evidence or information, and the Wizengamot completely reverses its ruling from "A Fate Worse Than Death" to a unanimous "clear of all charges". You can't even blame this one on Adults Are Useless or pure corruption, either. In a story where almost everyone is a rounded, fleshed-out character that has actual realistic motives, this instance is bizarrely out of place and nonsensical.)
I agree that the fake-trial was a tad rushed, but it certainly wasn't as ridiculous as you're making it out to be. Here are some things you might have missed in that scene that make the trial somewhat realistic:
1) Over 50 Wizengamot members voted against the first verdict (and that was just on the side of the courtroom that Harry could see).
2) Dumbledore was waiting for Harry's eyes to turn red in the courtroom before he could make his case.
3) Dumbledore brought with him statements from various Aurors about Harry's eyes that had been foregone as evidence.
It screamed "farce of a trial" to me, but it did so very strongly, so I understand why you didn't like the scene.
Edited by johnhancookie Hide / Show Replies