TOP 20 HARRY POTTER PLOT HOLES

This question is completely explained in the 2nd chapter of book 6

He said that he thought voldy was dead and didn't want to give up his cushy spot at hogwarts.

Because Snape hadn't gone to find Voldemort and took up a post at Hogwarts Voldemort assumed Snape had turned to Dumbledore and gone against him therefore not telling him his plans of possessing Quirrell fearing he would turn him over to Dumbledore. Snape thought Quirrell wanted the stone for himself, so tried to stop him from getting it. He protected Harry because, again, he thought it was just Quirrell being annoying and he had promised Dumbledore he would protect Harry.

This was addressed later on when snape says something along the lines of "i've told you more than once, i had no idea the dark lord had possessed quirrel"

JKR stated herself in an interview that she told the movie producers that it didn't matter if the eyes were green, just that whomever played Lily had the same color eyes as the actor who portrayed Harry. In the Deathly Hallows it is possible that Lily's eyes APPEAR brown because it is only her spirit that is appearing to Harry.

Okay, guys...yes, that was a stupid mistake on the part of the casting director and others who were making the movie. However, as the previous commented said, it is a mistake from the MOVIE and not from the book. Yes, Lily's eyes are supposed to be green, as are Harry's. But this would not be the first time the movie makers made a mistake. This forum is understood to be about plot holes in the books, not random flaws in the movie.

>From the movie >Not from the book >Your argument is invalid.

No one ever said "his eyes were the same color as his mother's" they would say you have your mother's eyes....meaning it could be shape of the eyes or the way someone stares, etc.

First, Daniel Radcliffe reacted to the contact lenses and it would have taken to much time to fix this digitally which would leave a pile of unhappy fans who wants the films to come out as fast as possible. Secondly, as it is mentioned in CoS: Chapter 3, Ginny has brown eyes which means that young Lily inherited her mother's eyes. It is also said in the book that Albus Severus Potter was the only one to inherit Harry's eyes. I was rather disappointed to find that movie Harry had blue eyes but at least they followed the books as to at least give Albus the same colour as Harry.

Are you kidding me. It's a billion dollar movie series...

Dan Radcliff had some sort of reaction to the contacts and they bothered his eyes. That’s why they just stuck with his original eyes. Yes they probably could have digitally fixed his eyes frame by frame but that would have took hours and a lot of money. The filmmakers had to focus on more important things.

The guy who plays Harry in the films actually had blue eyes, and it hurt him to wear green contacts. All the actresses who played Lily could/should have had blue eyes as well. The moviemakers probably gave her green eyes (most of the time) because that's how she was described, but the one where she has brown eyes was probably just overloooked..................jsyk, though, that isn't even really a plot hole

Also, if you'll note, in the movies Harry has blue eyes. Not green. I must caught that the last time I watched it. I've no idea how I missed it before. It upsets me though, that the script writers would forgo that particular detail.

Oh Yes!!! I too noticed the same thing in the movie .. turns out to be a plot hole in the movie! :P

It never said Buckbeak died, only that they heard the thump of the axe, and Hagrid howling. Later, in the second timestream they "could hear the words" Hagrid was saying. Everything that happened in the first timestream happened in the second, just from a different perspective.

well no the guy sliced the pumpkin when he found there was no buckbeak, u never actually see buckbeak dead do u, and Hermione and Harry still need 2 take Buckbeak up to where Sirius is waiting, Sirius never got the kiss to begin with

and I screwed up, sorry. the comment two below, I say Sirius is awaiting the kiss of the 'death eater.' Forgive me for that one, i'm high on flu medication in the middle of the night. I meant to say: 'Dementor.'

Continuation of the comment below: Basically, they are living the same three hours over again, so there are two of Harry and Hermione running around. The second time around, you get to see the extra pieces of the puzzle. At the same time that Hermione1 was sobbing over buckbeak's death the first time around, Hermione from the future (Hermione2) was setting the hippogriff free with Harry2. It's all happening at once, but we understand things as harry does, so we don't find out there's a second level to it until Harry1 is traveling in time and experiencing it as Harry2. hope that cleared it all up! So, you see? Really not a plothole, just a case of epic confusion....

Okay, did you read the books? Or even really paid attention while watching the movie? It explains it in detail in the book. because it is from Harry's point of view, we only know what is happening as he perceives it. When he goes back in time, technically, yes, everything has already happened. Sirius and Buckbeak are free, harry has already cast the patronus charm to save himself, and hermione has already howled at Lupin to get him away from Harry. however, none of this is explained to Harry until after he gets back. 1. Buckbeak was rescued out of sight, so he never died. The executioner was just throwing a fit because he didn't get to kill anything. 2. Sirius is not rescued until after Dumbledore gets the full story out of him and is headed to the hospital wing to tell harry and Hermione to go back in time, therefore, Not even Dumbledore finds out that Sirius has been rescued until after harry and Hermione have relived the past three hours and made it back in time. Therefore, he is actually awaiting the kiss of the death eater. 3. When Hermione howls to get Lupin's attention, as stated in my first point, Buckbeak never died, so he is perfectly able to save her. 4. because BUCKBEAK NEVER DIED IN THE FIRST PLACE, harry survives werewolf Lupin and goes to save himself at the lake. 5. As for the things that only happened in the movie (i.e. Hermione seeing herself and throwing rocks at harry's head) once again, it already happened.

I believe that neither in the books, or in the films, do we actually see Buckbeak being killed, i think in the film you just hear the SWISH and THUD of the axe, and in the book they're described to the reader. Time travel is something that doesn't make a lot of sense because there are many different outcomes of one action. Please stop nitpicking.

err... buckbeak does not die, the executioner smashes a pumpkin when they find out he's missing. you are an idiot.

You are talking about the film...

once the present happens, there is nothing you can do about it. you can try but in the end, what happened in the past the first time will always happen that way. if i see myself in 5 minutes and tell myself im from 1 year in the future, no matter what i do after that point, even if i try to not go back or try to go back and ssay something differnt or try to chnge something, i will end up going back in time to that moment and saying what was already said becasue IT ALREADY HAPPEND. Like if somone wanted to say try to go back and stop the World Trade Centers from going down, they would be up right now instead of waiting to be able to go back to stop it. kinda complicated but thats my best analygy/explaination.

Who is to say Sirius or Buckbeak DID die the first time? All we know as readers is that Harry, Ron, and Hermione hear the thud of the ax, not necessarily that Buckbeak died. Also, they did not say that Sirius had been killed, just that the Dementors were going to perform the kiss on him. Think of it like this, Rowling set it up so that in one time they believe one thing, that buckbeak and sirius both died, and in another that both are saved, but when Harry realized it was he himself that cast the patronus, we were to understand that sirius and buckbeak were never killed.

Buckbeak never died. Before Harry and Hermione went back in time, they thought that the sound of the axe hitting the stump was a sign of buckbeak's death, but it was actually just MacNair throwing the axe down in frustration. So, they just thought he had died when actually he had already escaped. Correct me if I'm wrong...

Its safe to say Dumbledore had the cloke, the Elder wand and was given the resurrection stone from Flamel. They used similar knowledge and properties of the resurrection within making the philosophers/ sorcerers stone.

I do have to wonder why Nicholas Flamel would have felt the need to continue working on Alchemy in any way. The ultimate goal of Alchemy is to produce the Philosopher's Stone; once that's achieved, why bother continuing to study the subject? I can see why he might want to teach some of what he know about Alchemy to others such as Dumbledore, but not why he'd want to keep working on it himself.

Right, Dumbledore is mentioned only as co-worker and good friend of Flamel. His role was only hiding the stone (in Gringotts, and in Hogwarts after the bad speculations about Voldemort), and we can presume that he was who advised to Flamel that the stone should be destroyed (to avoid happening events in CoS again), or maybe also helped in destroying it.

Also, Flamel was 665 the previous year, making him 666 when he dies. Just thought I'd put that out there.

I agree with the above commenter, he did not help create the stone, it just said that he researched Alchemy with him.

The books never said that dumbledore made the stone with flamel, just that the y worked together

The diary was created when he was quite young and opening the Chamber of Secrets was just about the worst crime he could achieve. The grown Voldemort would have valued it much more as a traditional horcrux to keep his soul safe. Remember that even Diary Riddle didn't care too much about "killing mudbloods." As soon he learned of Harry his goal was revive himself and kill Harry. Lucius did apparently know that the Diary woul bring about the reopening of the Chamber. It was probably a tale of Voldemort's past that he proudly told to those in his inner circle as an example of his great power.

i am sure Malfoy bought the book in the burkes? shop. Didn't tom left it there befor he went to albania? i think the place was importend to him , as it was his first wizarding job or something

Voldemort gave it to him intending for Lucius to plant it on a student, who would then become possessed and proceed to open the Chamber. But Voldemort told Lucius to do it when he was given the order. Lucius, assuming his master was dead, planted it on Ginny Weasley, hoping to discredit her family.

Yea this one was easily explained in the books

^^ johnnyb your answer is correct. Guys, read the end of the CoS. It's there.

he was told that somehow that book would open the chamber (but not how) and so he tried to frame the weasleys.

Quite a coincident that the purpose of the horcrux would be fulfilled by a random prejudice

It is explained in the book isn't it? Lucius didn't know what it was, he just knew it was evil. He hated the Weasleys and wanted to pin them down for having Dark Stuff.

"if he just stood there in any of the challenges, he would've died anyway." really? he couldn't have jumped in the lake, said "well, looks like i can't win this one," and climbed out? he couldn't have taken one step into the maze and immediately sent up red sparks? even with the dragon, while it wasn't explicitly said, i'm sure there was some forfeiture clause. he competed because by the time the actual tasks came around, he wanted to win

The cloak being impervious was part of the legend, which was stated as being somewhat exaggerated.

1. As said above, Snape probably did teach his own methods, as he wrote it on the board. 2. No one ever said Slughorn brewed them himself. 3. Like other items of importance, the Invisibilty Cloak isn't able to be acquired using the Accio charm. Otherwise, Harry could just Accio all the Horcruxes to him. But it is still susceptible to charms and spells. 4. I think this is part of Harry's personality. For one thing, he didn't realize that by entering in the tournament, Voldemort might come back. He wanted the eternal fame and glory that came with winning the tournament (plus the satisfaction of beating Diggory) and besides, if he just stood there in any of the challenges, he would've died anyway.

Snape *did* teach his versions of th recipes. If you read carefully, you'll realize that he wrote instructions on the board rather than using textbooks like Slughorn.

I don't remember if Slughorn said he made the potion. Maybe Professor Snape actually made the potion for the class ( Pre-planed lesson) but was then replaced by Slughorn. (Slughorn might have taken credit for the potion making to be a jerk (pulling off a Lockheart)

Could it be possible the school has a reservoir of potions. Also possible Slughorn mixed around potions for fun. The fact that he's on the run means little since he has enough space to carry a piano with him and well he must do something in between moving houses. Neither point is supported by any evidence in the book though.

Actually, Cedric would have died. Harry has to save him from the devil's snare which traps his body and slowly suffocates him. And Voldemort wouldn't get a new body but his soul would have survived long after Harry died of natural causes. I have no idea on the invisibility cloaks but I have a theory on the potion thing. Snape did teach his methods up until he became DADA teacher, then Slughorn came and teached methods straight from the book.

It was a binding magical contract. Perhaps it compelled him to compete to the best of his ability. The summon was on the cloak its self while the Petrificus Totalus was on Harry. Maybe the cloak only protects itself until the barer is the master of death. Sharing his potions advancements with students who dont know the basics would be putting the cart before the horse. maybe he had published his discoveries for other potions masters to use. as for Slughorn, maybe he bought the potions.

slughorn could have had time to prepare in the summer after harrya and rons visite snape could have taught some of his own potions, the cloak is only charm proof id the charm reviles who it is covering, and finaly harry is brave with a thirst to prove himself he woul want to try in the twt.

Yes, the Triwizard Tournament question is a good one. I mean, it was specifically said that Harry almost had to "forfeit" the second task. ...couldn't he just forfeit all three? You would think Dumbledore or somebody who didn't want him dead would have made him. Also they say the Goblet makes a "powerful binding contract," but what exactly happens if Harry just...refuses? Does he, like, die or what?

1: Also, Snape didn't have a lot of respect for his students. He might've shared secrets with one that he thought was really boss. 2: Actually, don't we learn in 7 that the cloak's impervious to enchantments? Maybe petrificus isn't classed as an enchantment, or maybe it's just a plot hole as you say. Good call on Slughorn's potions. Unless he'd left some stuff brewing at his actual home before going on the lam.

harry's pride meant he had to take part in twt, he would have been too embarrassed to not take part. it would have been 'cowardly' not to.

(1) Snape didn't teach his own versions of spells and potions because he was the sort of person who jealously guarded his own discoveries. He was proud of the fact that he was such a powerful wizard, and did not want to share that knowledge and teach others to be as powerful as he. (2) The invisibility cloak does not make one safe from spells; it simply cannot be summoned. There are many other objects in the books (such as the horcruxes) which also have anti-summoning charms placed on them. (3) No good answer for that one.

comment above ^ no he didn't :P it just so happened that Voldermort couldn't get it himself when he got there, and thought Harry might know how to.

No, Quirrell wanted to be followed by Harry. Voldemort wanted to use Harry to get the stone.

i bet that the positions where to refill ater a use

Yes, I think most of the obstacles did reset themselves seeing as there was a full chess board waiting for Ron, Harry and Hermione. They probably set it up that way for extra protection.

He didn't know he was going to be followed. if he did then he would have not left the music on with fluffy and had the ogre completely out cold. Obv the magical obsticals, like the chess board and the potions, for example, may have automatically reset themselves. it is a possiblity, right?

The order didn't know what it said. Beginning of the 6th book Dumbledore said "There are only 2 people in the whole world that know what that prophecy said and they are both standing in this broom closet."

the order members may not have been told the prophecy and blindly may have trusted dumbledor

Dumbledore would have known that the contents of the prophecy were almost worthless to Voldemort, true. However, protecting it did server one purpose: it kept Voldemort busy on a fruitless task. As long as Voldemort was pouring most of his resources into getting the prophecy, he couldn't focus on other things like taking over the Ministry or trying to kill Harry outright. In addition, if Voldemort became desperate enough, he might have risked going to the Ministry to retrieve it himself (which, of course, he eventually did) and thereby reveal himself. The prophecy was useless in and of itself, but it did provide a useful way to keep Voldemort occupied and eventually draw him out.

Voldermort knew he only heard part of the prophecy. maybe he thought that the prophecy would state how one would die. a way to kill Harry prehaps since he knew the hx would prevent him from dying.

it could have sounded like a weave or something to hermione

^ ^ Nagini seemed to be the only being who had Voldemort's absolute trust - probably because the snake was essentially an extension of himself.

The real question is why the hell would you send a snake for that job when you've got tons of Death Eaters at your disposal?

she never spoke in front of Hermione. Just gestured to get harry alone with her upstairs while leaving Hermione alone downstairs. Then when Bathilda got upstairs with Harry she spoke parcel tongue.

Hermione heard the hiss and probably thought she was a cooky old lady making weird noises. Harry said "its alright" when she jumped so she thought everything was ok

"JK said that the elder wand is only loyal to the wizard with the most power." So, the elder wand chose Draco over Dumbledore? Draco Malfoy had more powerful than the great Dumbledore? That's preposterous. So, if any disarming, stealing, overpowering works, Voldmort's stealing it from the grave should have worked to. The whole elder wand development clearly has serious plot holes - which doesn't make the story any more thrilling and entertaining.

To the comments above: Wands are FICKLE, for one thing. It's even possible that there WAS no "true master" of the Elder Wand when Gregorovitch had it; that perhaps he'd had it for a while or its allegiance faded or just wasn't as strong with Gregorovitch as it was with its previous owner. And if that's the case, then Grindelwald would've been able to take it and have the same "relationship" with the wand that Gregorovitch did, and THAT is why Dumbledore was able to defeat him and win the wand's true allegiance. Again, wands are fickle, and Harry was able to wrest Draco's wand from his own hands and win its allegiance THAT way...whereas Draco couldn't even win his own mother's wand's allegiance simply by using it. Recall, Bellatrix's wand was "unyielding" and that Ollivander said to be careful with it, which is to let us assume that its allegiance was still with Bellatrix, even though Harry had taken it from Draco's hands even though RON had disarmed Bellatrix. If "disarming" made wands change allegiance all the time, then there would be no real point in wands choosing their wizards (and then, Ron would've been master of Bellatrix's wand, all of the DA members would've switched wands...heck, even Snape would be the master of Lockhart's wand, LOL).

The real plothole is that if it's true that Grindelwald won the wand's allegiance just by being "powerful" and stealing it, why didnt Harry destroy it at the end of DH (book) to ensure that couldnt happen again? I think JK has thought of this before though, which is why she wrote how wand magic is complex into the story.

Someone said: to add to that, WHY didn't Voldemort just use the spell to take Draco's wand from Harry instead of using the killing curse? Especially after Harry explained it like an idiot? Because if all you need to do is take the wand that overpowered the elder, then Voldemort only needed to take DRACO'S wand to truly be the master he didn't even have to kill him by that logic. plot hole. This makes sense, however, who's to say that it would have worked? If Harry truly was the owner of the elder wand, then perhaps disarming him with the elder wand would not have worked? I think that is the answer. Plus, even if Voldemort did, all of the other Hogwarts residents would have attacked him.

The reason Dumbledore was able to defeat Grindewald in the duel was because the elder wand didn't always win every duel. As Dumbledore said, he didn't believe the hallows were actually given by death, but just enchanted by three very powerful wizards. That's the reason why the invisibility cloak didn't block all spells and why the elder wand didn't win every duel. The elder wand was nothing more than a very powerful wand. Dumbledore's magical power + the power of his wand exceeded Grindewald's magical power + the power of the elder wand. That's part of the reason why Dumbledore was so scared to fight Grindewald in a duel, and just sat back while innocent people died, because he was afraid of going into a duel against a wizard whose wand never failed. Remember, Dumbledore wanted to be a master of death by obtaining all 3 hallows, so the idea of dying was frightening to him. Only when the situation called that he could hide no more, did he duel Grindewald. Once he defeated Grindewald in the duel, he realized that the elder wand was not a hallow given by death, and then he accepted the idea that he would die, because obtaining the 3 deathly hallows would not make him a master of death because they were human made.

Dumbledore planned for Snape to kill him, so the ownership would have moved over to him, but Malfoy used magic to force the wand to him, therefore he took over the ownership. Hence Dumbledore had nothing left to do with the wand, but only people who had been on the tower at that time would know this; Voldemort only trusted certain information to certain people and liked to do things by himself, as he never had a friend, so no one knew he was trying to find the wand and would think of Malfoy disarming Dumbledore as nothing. When they were in Malfoy Manor Harry attacked Malfoy and forced the wands out of his hands, therefore he took over the ownership if the elder wand. Voldemort soon after this went to Dumbledores grave and took the wand, thinking that he was the last owner; he thought he was the rightful owner of the wand. Harry told Voldemort all the information to taunt him, we know this because he calls him Tom, something that only Dumbledore only ever called him, and we all know that Dumbledore was the only person 'Tom' feared. He is trying to show Voldemort just how blind he was, not looking at the little details. Voldemort, not knowing anything about wandlore wasn't sure what would happen, and not knowing that the elder wand wouldn't harm its rightful master. The final battle was fought with their own magic potential, as the elder wand was just a normal wand to Voldemort; the battle proved that Harry was the better wizard.

^^^ Your answer may be true, because draco overpowed dumby-dore BEFORE voldemort could take the wand! True genius!

stealing a wand from someone counts as overpowering them, thats the way that harry overpowered malfoy

while duelinkg with the elder wand you always win so how did Dumbledore defeat Grindelwald

he took it dtunned gregorivitch than left not that hard

When Grindelwald took the wand, he zapped Gregorovitch with a stunning spell (probably with his own wand), thus defeating him. The wand then changed its loyalty.

@3rd commenter: The true owner of the Elder Wand doesn't need to know that they are, it would seem. The Elder Wand knows, and that's enough. Draco disarmed Dumbledore, and thus unknowingly won the Wand's allegiance. Harry overpowered Draco and took Draco's wand. Even though it was not the Elder Wand, the wand must have sensed that its owner was overpowered, and thus it became Harry's. Voldemort never overpowered Draco; he never overpowered the wand's true owner. He took the wand from Dumbledore, not knowing that the wand's allegiance was no longer with Dumbledore. The actual transfer of the Wand itself, physically, is almost meaningless. It's more concerned with victories than who's actually holding it.

JK said that the elder wand is only loyal to the wizard with the most power. Grindelwald was clearly more powerful than Gregorovitch, from whom the wand was stolen. During or after the duel with Grindelwald, the wand bowed to Dumbledore's power, meaning he was superior. Voldemort would have easily been able to take the wand from Draco, but perhaps bullying him was not enough to take full possession. Voldemort never could have taken the wand from Dumbledore, because Voldemort feared death, which was a truth that Dumbledore faced willingly.

^exactly. the wand chooses the wizard and that way it gives it's allegence it also takes on the owners personality as the years ware on. harry's wand worked on it's own accord attacking voldy knowing the enamy was near, when they were flying. the elder wand was owned by dumbledore for several years. it took on his personality so it would decide to put it's allegence in harry to defeat voldymort.

* The 3rd comment * Thanks! *2 thumbs up* I never did understand that. To the rest of you guys, you're looking at it all wrong, remember that wands have a mind of their own (Ollivander), it isn't a set in stone process, so this wand decides for itself based on the situation

to add to that, WHY didn't Voldemort just use the spell to take Draco's wand from Harry instead of using the killing curse? Especially after Harry explained it like an idiot? Because if all you need to do is take the wand that overpowered the elder, then Voldemort only needed to take DRACO'S wand to truly be the master he didn't even have to kill him by that logic. plot hole.

If just stealing the Elder Wand makes you it's owner, THAT is a HUGE plot hole. Voldemort taking the wand from Dumbledore's grave therefore SHOULD have worked because it was DRACO'S wand but he stole it. Unless the owner has to KNOW he's the owner? If simply physically overpowering someone makes you the owner, then Dumbledore could have just wrestled it from Grindelwald instead of battling. Plus, Harry took DRACO'S wand, how does that make him the ELDER WANDS' owner? And IF my thought that one has to know they're the wands owner is valid, if Harry took DRACO'S wand while he's unaware he's the owner of the elder, it shouldn't have worked. By that logic, if Ron or someone wrestles HARRY'S wand from his hand, they are now the ELDER WAND'S owner. How does that make ANY sense? So, if anyone wants to be the elder wands owner, they don't even need to take the ELDER WAND, but the wand that overpowered the elder wand? But by THAT logic, Harry's wand NEVER overpowered the elder wand, nor did it overpower Draco's. Harry TOOK DRACO'S wand by force, which SOMEHOW made him the owner of the Elder.

NO. You just have to defeat the previous owner. You could do this with or without magic. Stealing, physically overpowering, or just using expelliarmous. Dumbledore defeats Gridelwald in a duel, then Malfoy disarms Dumbledore on the tower, (then Harry later overpowers Malfoy and takes his wand at the mansion)....therefore when dumbledore died he was no longer the master of the Elder Wand so it didn;t matter that Voldemort stole the wand from his grave...

But you have to defeat the previous master of the Elder Wand. If stealing it is good enough, then Voldemort stealing it from Dumbledore's tomb would have made him the master.

He took it therefore he was the master

What I'd like is an explanation of how this is a plot hole.

malfoy called for it to be postponed it was only a small game the ones that harry was ingured for was the finals

I agree with the comment above. Plus, Draco has a powerful father. Lucius would probably ban playing Quidditch and fire Madame Hooch if no one delayed the game.

Harry didn't whine about it; he just kept playing. Malfoy, on the other hand, would have done all he could to make his injury seem even worse than it was.

you have to know and/or play golf to be able to obtain golf balls? i'm sure a quidditch store would supply them, for seekers wishing to practice

Scotland + Britain = Same Island

Golf is Scottish, not British.

golf is a british game, he might have gotte the golf ball idea out of a book or something...

Though a Wizard, Oliver Wood is still SCOTTISH. And they did invent the sport.

Golf is a much older game, and was invented in the British Isles. Basketball is an American game without much of a following in England. It does surprise me that he wouldn't even have HEARD of basketball, but it's not surprising that he would know more about golf.

You read about a flying car in a wizarding world and the one thing that you don't believe is that it would run out of gas?

^^ I agree, but he may be making a point, it never states it in the book.

OK, are the responders to this one TOTALLY lacking a sense of humor? This isn't a serious attempt at finding plot hole; the poster is just making fun of Fords!

mr weasley put a spell on it to fill up the gaz duh!

Any other car, I could believe it could be magically made to run without the need of repair. But not a Ford.

Yeah, it probably doesn't require gas, either. Arthur would be baffled by a petrol station.

It's magic. I mean, you accept a magical tree that beats people up don't you?

I suspect that Snape's doe patronus combined with his knowledge about Harry and Ron finding the sword of Griffindor at the lake would have convinced Harry to at least listen to his story. If he had been able to bring Harry to the Headmaster's Office, the portrait of Dumbledore could have confirmed that Snape was telling him the truth.

If Snape hadn't died then imagine how awkward the conversation between him and Harry would have been. lol, "Ahem soo... Potter... I loved your mum since I was like 10 and really only hate you because your a constant reminder of what I lost, " ahaha and he'd have to back that up with memories. I dont know how he could face Harry after that haha

Lol how awkward would that conversation have been? Imagine if Snape hadn't died then, in order for him to gain Harry's trust he would have obviously needed to explain from the beginning whilst providing the memories as further proof. I can just imagine it "Errm, so yh Potter. I loved your mum since I was 10" nervous giggle escapes Snape. Lool would have been epic. Start of a beautiful bromance between Snape and Harry. I could see it happening. I have a different ending for Harry Potter in my head ;)

You answered the question for yourself :) THe psychology of a dying person is very interesting, we just accept that things doesn't always happen for special reasion. Snape revealed everything just because it was the last chance to do so. The item which proofed that the story is truth the memory piece about Snape's feelings toward Lily's. This is why he managed the 7 years despite of his dislike toward James, the forbidden love was so strong that Snape always remained on the good side, and also gave the strength to hide his character until the very last moment (and then only revealed it to Harry, to keep everything in safe)

Hypothetically if Voldemort hadn't of placed Snape on the brink of death then and Snape did find Harry and tell him what he knew it is quite possible Harry wouldn't have believed him. Obviously the original plan was for Snape to do this alive so it seems Dumbledore thought Harry would give Snape a chance when it came down to it.

snape was going to go find him, thats why he was begging voldemort to go back and look for harry

But memories can be tampered with and falsified. Slughorn did this to his own memory - badly, to be sure, but Snape was a more powerful and knowledgeable wizard than Slughorn and could likely have done a better job of it. The only reason, I think, that Harry accepted Snape's memories as trustworthy, is that Snape was on the verge of death at the time he offered them and (1) didn't have the time or the energy to tamper with them, and (2) had no reason to lie at that point, since he was dying anyway. If Snape had forced Harry to view those memories in a pensive (and he would have HAD to force Harry to do it, since Harry wouldn't likely do anything Snape wanted him to do at that point without being forced), then Harry would have had every reason to doubt that the memories were real.

Snape could have also pulled his own memories out of his own head and placed them in a Pensieve for them both to see. Dumbledore did this a time or two.

Snape was going to go tell him that why he kept asking Voldemort if he could go find him, he probably showed him the memories and not just told him about it

^Harry did use magic during that chapter am guessing in the middle of an attack by Voldemort the ministry will not consider that rule to apply!

Apparating is not the same as casting a spell. Remember in book 7, how they couldn't Apparate to the safe house because it was monitored by the MoM? It wouldn't have meant anything to the Ministry if they saw that someone had Apparated, period. It would have only mattered if they saw that it was Harry Potter, Public Enemy Number One, as well as much of the Order of the Phoenix. And anyway, know how it says 'they can't tell who cast it'? They have to have some idea of who was in the area, and they would have noticed that the only one who had actually left was of age.

because nobody is paying him any attention

Basically Rowling played fast and loose with this law. She probably shouldn't have introduced it in the first place.

Because Harry's magical signature showed he was still there.

It is not the person, but the LOCATION that the MOM monitors. They will in particular be monitoring locations where an underage wizard resides, but where no one of age does.

Harry had not been trained to apparate. It is not something one can just DO. You have to learn it from an official and even then it's difficult. It's not like casting a charm.

The ONLY time in which Harry is falsely accused of having cast a spell while underage is when Dobby does it - and Dobby, at the time, WANTED Harry to be blamed for it. He could have cast his spell in such a way as to deliberately make it appear that Harry had done it. If the trace is set off every time someone uses magic near an underage wizard, then anyone with kids would never be able to use magic at all without alerting the MOM.

Maybe they thought it was improbably a 15 year old could apparate?

What I don't understand here is why did Dumbledore ask snape to keep an eye on quirell... If he thought something was wrong he should've taken more active steps to interrogate Quirell or something. Trying to steal the Philosopher's stone seems like a pretty big thing :p

No, no, I consider this a plot hole too and a rather big one. First of all, Voldemort was far too weak to even b talking to anyone except his host head (Quirrell). And he was only able to overpower and command Quirrell because Quirrell was a weak mind in the first place. And JKR is supposed to have us believe that not only is Snape supposed to ignore the smell coming from Quirell's turban (which is something Forge had said smelled like cabbage, LOL), but one of the GREATEST Occulmens/Legilimens--Snape--couldn't see through WEAK Quirrell's mind to the weak Vapormort (LOL) that was clinging to the back of the guy's head? Sorry, no...plot hole. Big one, too.

If Snape knew he was Voldie, then because he was on Dumbie's side, he would of told him immediately. That would of ruined my whole day.

i think that snape was able to convince voldermort that he thought quirrle wanted it for himself.

If you read the chapter in DH where Harry is visiting Snape's memories via the Pensieve, you'd actually realise that Dumbledore ASKED Snape to keep an eye on Quirrel. Always remember that Snape, no matter what anyone says, was loyal to Dumbledore out of love for Lily.

yes, as ^ said, Snape didn't even KNOW that Voldemort was on the back of Quirrel's head. Voldemort didn't jut TELL Snape he was there, because that was before Voldemort was certain that Snape was still on his side. Snape could have just run to Dumbledore to tell him... neither could Voldemort have orderd Quirrel to kill Snape if he wasn't on his side anymore, because Snape is just a much better wizard than Quirrel. Voldemort was piowerless to fight in a duel. :)

This is answered in one of the chapters in the beginning of book 6. Snape told Bellatrix that what he saw was greedy Quirrel trying to steal the stone for his personal gains. He had no idea Quirrel was doing it on Voldemort's orders.

because harry wasn't the only wizard there, and anyway the ministry would know by then they couldn't just waltz in and arrest harry, they no longer feared him.

Grimauld Place was under the Fidelius Charm

remember that Dobby INTENDED for Harry to be implicated in the levitation of the pudding. He probably could have done it without raising the attention of the Ministry... but he wanted Harry to be expelled from Hogwarts, and so he may have deliberately cast his spell in such a way that it would set off the Trace.

Why would the Order have told the Ministry that? Are you kidding? They were secret from the Ministry. The Ministry did not believe, at that time, that Voldemort was back and wanted to eradicate any thoughts or plans against him, as demonstrated by Umbridge at Hogwarts. They are the last people they would have told.

i dont think dobby's magic should have counted because why would a elf's magic register as wizards when at the quiddich world cup it didnt?

I expect that the order of the phoenix would have let the ministry know that they were going to Harry's home.

The order of the phoenix members are all of age... they dont have the trace on them. I can't explain dobby though. Harry was caught for using magic because he had the trace on him.

He had to tap the map and say, "I solemnly swear that I am up to know good." Yes, he knew their names, but he didn't know how to operate. Like it says, the map appears like a blank piece of parchment unless said words are spoken.

maybe he guest or maybe they just called each other that when lupin was a werewolf and they where out around hogwarts and hogsmead

i thought snape did know these names as in 'order of the phoenix' where umbridge asks him for more veritaserum to find out more about harry's training of the others, harry gives him a message deliberately using "padfoot" so that no one but snape would understand what he was talking about

as stated above snape did know who the marauders were

He did know who Moony, Wormtail, Padfoot and Prongs were- that's why he asked Lupin if Harry had gotten the map "Directly from the manufacturers".

Its not literally sees through the Cloke its more or less Dumby and Moody can see subtle change of area around the Cloke of invisibility. Remember the Cooke doesn't hide footprints. Also wonder if they can pick up on someone using disillusionment charm.

In the second movie it implied that Dumbledore could see Harry and Ron through the cloak in Hagrid's hut. When someone asked JKR if Dumbledore could see through the cloak, she'd said yes.

The cloak was supposed to make its wearer truly invisible. Moody should not have been able to see through it, period.

Moody's eye can see body heat

Right, in the first book Harry takes off the cloak to look at the image clearly, and there was no one in sight; had you have read it you would see that Dumbledore was actually the one that was invisiable, because he could do that without the means of cloaks. Another comment I read, Malfoy wasn't able to see through the cloak, when Harry was getting up his trainer showed and Malfoy was staring in that direction.

Dumbledore doesn't actually see through the cloak, he is just soo smart that he knows they are there without physically seeing them.

Death dosent needs an invisibility cloak! Isnt that so? "YES I DO NOT NEED ONE; NEVER HAD ONE." ;-)

This is not really a plothole I suppose. I think JKR never thought that her good creation of a fairy tale could become this legendary thing we know today, she just thought of a invisibility cloak for HP1 and thought of a super wizard like Dumbledore. That's all. I think she even didn't think of the deathly hallows when she was writing HP1.

dumbledore couldn't see through it he juste sensed them there because he's crazy good...:)

the fact that it is the cloak of death was said to be a myth, dumbledore thought it more reasonable to assume the pevril brothers where just very powerfull wizards and invented the three hallows

I don't think this is a plot hole at all. See, in the story being part fairy tale. Like, the Cloak is invincible in never being able to be torn, or wearing off in time like other cloaks, that's what it is. But you can see under it and stuff. The elder wand also has flaws such as being "unbeatable" yet, it's been beaten loads of times. It being the most powerful wand probably just means it can actually pass from person to person and giving the same amount of power unlike other wands. Also, it can do powerful magic that original ones cannot do. That's all. I think the only legit hallow is the ring to bring people back from the dead [at least by ghost]

malfoy saw goyle's trunk hit harry. he also saw something white flash when Zabini entered

Forget moody and dumbledore. Why could Malfoy see through the cloak. . .

in the first book surely dumbledore would see the door to the room open and know it was harry.

The belongs to death thing IS a fairytale. Dumbledore doesn't actually se through the cloak, he uses Homenum Revelio nonverbally. Moody's eye can see through things, he could perfectly see through the part of the cloak that was closer to himself (remember that the cloak doesn't make the wearer invisible).

Book 1 at the Mirror of Erised: "Back again, Harry?" is where Dumbledore saw through the cloak.

When was it mentioned that Dumbledore saw through it? If you're referring to book 2, he could have used Legilimens on Hagrid, or else he deduced that they visited because Hagrid had 2 extra cups set.

The story says the cloak can hide one from Death himself. Unless I missed something, neither Dumbledore nor Moody were Death, and Death doesn't have a magical eye nor any wizarding abilities at all, as far as I'm aware. Therefore, there's no reason why certain 'super' magical powers should not detect the presence of the cloak.

The reason could be simple. If both the cloak and the eye are a magical objects then it's not impossible the eye's magic somehow surpassed the cloak ability to hide people. Also we don't know how the eye really worked.

I'm sorry, but I have to agree with the original post. The fairy tale ended up not being an actual fairy tale in the end, so the plot hole is valid. Ring=ghostly apparitions of loved ones, cloak=invisability, wand=invinsibility in duels. The only thing that was skewed was the cloak. Moody shouldn't have been able to see through it-but he could have seen the actual cloak or an outline, but that really isn't all that likely. Dumbles could probably tell someone was there due to the wards at Hogwarts is all. Still really big plot hole that wasn't explained.

moody has his eye, and i dont believe it ever said dumbledore could see through a cloak, i think he just was very clever and could sense people near him.

Moody has a magic eye and dumbledore had another of the deathly hallows, so maybe that meant he could see through the cloak. Also he was very good wasn't he.

And anyways, the whole story about those items belonging to death was just a fairy tale. They were most likely made by three very skilled wizards.

Moody has his magical eye, which can't necessarily see through invisibility cloaks, but they can tell you wherever any human is. It's must be imbued with the "Homonus Revelio" Charm

it is possible that she had a job to help any muggleborns onto the platform that didn't know how to

she was flustered trying to keep every one together, and it was a good way to introduce the characters.

I'm not sure if you've ever heard of a rhetorical question, but thats what Molly was using when she asked what the platform number was.

Just because platform 9 3/4 is used throughout the book, doesn't mean it hadn't changed since she was a child. how many times in one lifetime do the subways and other railways go on construction for years at a time. now picture someone is trying to keep the transportation a secret. wouldn't you change location every so often?

yeah but she should still know the platform number. i mean, she would've taken that train twice a year for 7 years herself no?

she knows how to enter the platform. She has seven kids to lok after, and must have had a very busy morning, rshing aound getting all the kids packed. She only needs to remember it twice a year, and being from a magic family where things like a platform named 9 3/4 must be very ordinary. She probably just temporarily forgot the number when she says : "now, what's the platform number?"

The only hint in this regard is when she asks "What's the platform number?" She was probably only asking in order to allow one of the children to answer (it was Ginny in fact). As a parent I do this all the time, it helps the kids to feel smart and helpful.

??? She does???

Hermione: 19 September, 1979 Ron: 1 March, 1980 Harry: 31 July, 1980 She's almost a year older than Harry. She turned 17 very early in their sixth year,

Sounds like Fanfiction to me. Really bad Fanfiction.

His parents bought him a new wand in the beginning of POA.

Harry had never been confronted with Dumbledore, a man so powerful and all of that, at a weakened state. Before going into the cave, Dumbledore told Harry to do as he instructs. So when Dumbledore tells Harry to keep the water coming but then starts begging for Harry to stop, Harry is torn between doing what Dumbledore said before and what Dumbledore was saying in that moment. Torn between what's right and what's wrong- but the situation was a mix of both. Harry isn't a heartless person. That's why Harry was hesitant and nervous and didn't think of conjouring some water from his wand and into Dumbledore's gob.

to the previous comment, we are talking about the same charecter aren't we, its just on the previous 5 books harry never got so nervous or scared he wasn't able to act, except when with dementors of which there were none

first it's spelled WATER, second if you actually READ the BOOKS you'd know that Harry HADN'T been able to summon water, third Harry was freaking out by that point Dumbledore was acting like a madman and Harry was scared, no normal person would be completely calm-minded with all that going on.

No. He didn't visit Godric's Hollow until Book 7

Open the book, read, and find out yourself!

Because in WAR you don't plan battles with everyone, most often people don't realize there's a battle until it's over unless you're actually THERE. The People who where there were the DA, the OoP, and the students. All people who would be told very quickly what was going on. And also Buboxum(I can't spell it) is not an all girl school in the boooks, just the movies.

This wasn't a massively planned out battle by Hogwarts. It was more 'you have a few hours, try not to die when it happens', they didn't have time to write party invitations.

The centaurs do help, when Neville kills the snake and all the chaos starts a volley of arrows fall all over the place. This is the help the centaurs give

perhaps because neither schools would have wanted to involve their children in a battle that technically wasn't theirs and with the centaurs, the ajority of them hate allying themselves with humans because of everything that has been done to them by humans

Someone already said this. It was corrected in later editions.

He may well have been hiding with the family of a DA member.

^ ^ Nowhere. But given that Colin was 16 in DH and had not had any magical education since his 5th year it seems unlikely he'd know how to apparate. Plus being under age he'd still have the trace. Given how the deatheaters felt about muggleborns it'd be insanely risky for him to use magic. It is however not a plot hole (no plot hinges on whether Colin is there or not), just a mistake.

Where does it say muggleborns can't apparate?

Wouldn't the Creevy brothers have to hide after Voldie took over the ministry? I don't think I'd choose to live in Hogsmead if deatheaters were after me.

Hogsmead is an all wizard community, and Creevy's dad is a muggle milkman. Moreover, Colin himself says in CoS that he "never knew all the stuff he could do was magic", so it's pretty unlikely they have any contact with the magical community outside Hogwarts.

^^ Not necessarily. For all we know, the Creeveys live in Hogsmeade. I don't recall if Colin or his brother was ever mentioned as being on the Hogwarts Express.

Even if he was alerted to the goings on by the DA coin (as Rowling has explained) it does not explain how he made it to Hogsmead, in order to come via the room of requirement. As a muggleborn he wouldn't have been able to travel magically at that time. This is a genuine plot hole.

he camne through the room of requirement.

He WAS expelled. He was among the other students who'd snuck into the Room of Requirement during the war.

^^^Well that would look rather stupid now wouldn't it? And why would everyone need one? Mad Eye only had it because he was very paranoid, and he needed a fake eye in the first place.

Yeah but it also says the hallow cloak renders the wearer truly invisible. How is it truly invisible if mad eye's eye can see through it? And if the eye is so powerful that it can see through even one of the hallows why wouldn't everyone get one, and put it in a pair of glasses or something?

it never stated that it was his invisibily ckoak that was torn... it could have been a normal wizard cloak

Moody's eye isn't casting an enchantment on the cloak. It doesn't affect the cloak or its wearer in any way.

The seventh book also says that the invisibility cloak is impervious to all enchantments, yet in book 4 Crouch can see through it with Moody's eye.

They didn't mean the invisibility cloak - they were talking about the regular, every day cloaks that they wear.

did you ever think that it didn't mean invisiblity cloak? maybe just a cloak. x.x

If they could've, they would've.

what always got me is that in the books dumbledoore created a goblet so why couldn't he just create 12 goblets fill them all up and leave them by the basin?

And when Dumbledore had just drunken 10 goblets or whatever, why couldn't Harry have drunken the last 2. Dumbledore was able to drink 3 goblets before begging for relief. If Harry had done that, he could have saved them from having to drink from the lake, do you thnk

I have entered this as another plot hole, when Dumbledore is about to drink the potion, neither he nor Harry actually discuss what Harry should do when they have retrieved the 'horcrux' or what to do with this potion-affected Dumbledore. Ok, as far as they know, Dumbledore could have been about to loose his memory etc and as he is the only one who actually knows how to destroy the horcruxes. Also Dumbledore was dying, but Harry didn't know that, so what was Harry going to do with Dumbledore afterwards and how would they know how to explain to the order or the mynistry.

A rather significant point: Dumbledore was dying. Snape had previously said(as revealed in his memories in DH)that he could prevent the curse from spreading outside Dumbledore's hand for a while but it eventually would,then gave him a year or so before it did.So Dumbledore was fully aware that his days were already numbered and therefore didn't want to risk something going wrong and especially getting Harry hurt over nothing.

Hell why not even leave it there and come back later when you figured a way to remove the horcrux without drinking the damn poison. You localized the horcrux, it not your last and it not going anywhere. Off course Dumbledore is dying by then so he might want cross that off his list. For that matter Dumbledore secrecy obsession is more a hindrance than anything else the smartest thing Harry did was tell Neville that the snake needed to die. What if the trio got killed before all the horcrux were destroyed? Having Dumbledore portrait recruit somebody else for the horcrux quest ain't much of a back up plan!

We don't know what kind of enchantments Voldemort put on it. I don't think Dumbledore would want to risk trying to trick it and ending up having some kind of horrible curse cast on both of them.

Dumbledore could've swallowed a bezoar, or unlikely to work as it is spit it into a conjured cup charmed to preven it from going back into the basin or enlarged his mouth (it it is possible) and hold it all without ever swallowing the potion...

you had to drink it, plus dumbledore wouldn't let harry go through the pain, he loved harry remenber

^ ^ I would have to think that Voldemort would have thought of that. After all, he went through the bother of securing a house-elf to test it, when he could have just brought along a goat or something if that was all it took. My guess is that the potion only works on intelligent beings - and when it doesn't "work", it reappears in the bowl. Feeding it to an animal would have the same effect as pouring it on the ground.

The Kreacher "experiment" has showed it can be drunk by other creatures than humans, so why not transfigure an rock, or conjure a snake? Unless casting such spell would trigger a cascade of events( like a taboo on spells),or such spells were made impossible to cast in the cave.

All of these plot holes are so god damn funny. "Really big goblet" lmao

They do try other methods of emptying the potion and nothing works. Dumbledore figures out that Voldemort would want to weaken his enemy, therefore, whoever wanted the locket would have to drink the potion.

Voldemort had ensured that nothing but drinking the potion, using the goblet, would work.

It's magical! Presumably, the potion may be removed only a small amount at a time, and if it is not drunk it simply reappears in the bowl.

You guys need to read the book better. Firstly, hermonie states: (paraphasing) they have probably put death eaters around all known locations relating to harry. They discovered harry's POSSIBLE location beause the 'will' of sirus is in the possesiton of the MoM (Ministry of Magic)- so they know harry owns a house here. The fidelius charm + the blacks house charms = No magical disturbance from the taboo: "voldermort". They use voldermort name several times inside the house (like when they first arrive) but no "hooded men" appear. When it's alost time to head to hogwards ron states (once again, paraphrasing): it's like they think we will come marching out to go to school. Additionally, hermonie states (paraphrasing): I doubt they know we are here, if they did they would have probably have sent more death eaters. This is all within the chapter within book 7: Chapter 12: Magic is Might. - All the paraphrasing i've done, is near the beggining of this chapter.

because of the fedalius charm

This is not a plot hole, The Death eaters couldn't get into and or see Grimmauld Place, but when they used Voldemort's name inside the deatheaters started showing up there and looking at the area where they knew it to be said, waiting for the person to say it to show themselves.

"If you read over that part again, you'll see that they keep seeing "hooded men" outside of the house, because they kept using the name, but they couldn't get in because of the Fidelius Charm, which is unable to be broken by the Taboo." I think you are right. They did know someone was saying "Voldemort" but they didn't know who. Voldemort wouldn't just show up. The deatheaters had to be sure it was Harry. Remember in DH when Harry was captured and at Bella's house, they asked Draco to positively identify Harry first.

In Book 5, Sirius mentions that one of the reasons why his family home makes such a good headquarters for the Order of the Phoenix is that his father placed every protective spell on it that he possibly could. This combination of protections, plus the Fidelius Charm, was likely enough to block the "Voldemort" name spell.

No. This is a huge plot hole. The Taboo is set right when the Ministry falls (it's how they are traced to the cafe on Tottenham Court Rd). When Harry asks Lupin if the Trace could still be on him, Lupin says that if the Trace was still in effect then the Death Eaters would have known he was at Grimmauld Place. Yes, they would not be able to ENTER the house, but there would be WAAYYY more Death Eaters (even Voldemort) staked outside.

Fidelus Charm

If you read over that part again, you'll see that they keep seeing "hooded men" outside of the house, because they kept using the name, but they couldn't get in because of the Fidelius Charm, which is unable to be broken by the Taboo.

It might have been set when the death eaters took over the ministry..?

maybe because they said it in grimmauld place the deatheaters couldn't get in there?

The taboo was brought in straight away (hence the reason Harry, Ron and Hermione were tracked to the cafe in London). The Fidelus Charm however is an extremely complex spell involving only the secret keeper being able to reveal the exact location of the house. I doubt the taboo would be able to reveal the house. The fact that there are dark wizards outside in the square, suggests that they at least know someone is in the general area, but can't see the house until the secret keeper tells them.

The taboo hasn't been set yet. It was a semi recent thing when Ron returned to them in the woods.

Voldemort could only become the scaly-child-thing once he had Wormtail to help him. What Wormtail actually did hasn't been explained yet

they mentioned unicorn blood was keeping him alive...

I was just about to answer this in EXACTLY the same way as right above my comment. Good job. :) Referring back to the books is always the best way, much better than just giving opinions.

It states clearly in GoF that Voldemort was able to get a weak body back on page 656. "Wormtail was able to follow the instructions I gave him, which would return me to a rudimentary, weak body of my own, a body I would be able to inhabit while awaiting the essential ingredients for true rebirth....a spell or two of my own invention....a little help from my dear Nagini,"(......)"a potion concocted from unicorn blood, and the snake venom Nagini provided...I was soon returned to an almost human form, and strong enough to travel."

Here's a horrifying possibility - what if they used some sort of spell to impregnate Bertha Jorkins, and she gave birth to a soulless child-thing which Voldemort subsequently took possession of? That would explain why he was in the form of a baby, and not a fully-grown adult.

Bertha Jorkins, you should understand.

J.K. has said that there is an explanation for this, and that a body was "constructed" for Voldemort to exist in until he was able to arrange for a better one. It will be revealed when she finally publishes the Encyclopedia.

Obviously Voldemort killed a reptile-human hybrid and used it's body.

Voldemort had Peter Pettigrew make him a baby-looking body using unicorn's blood and Nagini's venom

I believe it was a form of his bodiless horcrux. maybe they can take human forms when they need to be used?

To the gest before me: Are you kidding?

through naginis venom... wormtail milks nagini and this vemon allows voldemort to keep the tangible body.

I thought that then I remembered it was only to keep you alive? Maybe he killed someone else for that body? Or is it only part of his soul like in book 7 at Kings Cross they are all there because there souls are in tact, the small naked screaming child was Voldemorts broken soul

Doesn't he drink the unicorn blood?

Neither Dumbledore nor anyone else knew the creature was a basilisk. Otherwise they would have just had crowing roosters placed all over the castle or something... That's the true plot-hole/ idiocy of the end of the book. They've finally learned what the creature is and have read of a means to deal it a fatal blow and never think that somewhere in the area, other than Hagrid's hutch, someone might own a rooster... Actually the truly ridiculous thing is that they have the proof in their hands and say "hey' we have the proof, let's show it to the professors"- go to the staff room, with proof in hand, ready to show it to them... and instead hide... and the only person they eventually decide to tell anything to to is the one professor they believe is truly incompetent.

That's a very illogical argument you are trying to make. Just because the text does not mention a Parseltongue that is not related to Slytherin, doesn't mean that there are none. By your argument no wizards are ever born on April 21 or June 15, because the book doesn't say that any wizards are born on those dates.

voldemort was possesing ginny she spoke parseltong

It is stated in the second book that Dumbledore never trsuted riddle after that, so that means he did know, he just had no proof.

@two above me... only one person died... not "everyone". Also, Dumbledore couldn't expel Tom, no matter what he believed. He was only the Transfiguration teacher at the time. Also, @ one above me, I can't think of anybody that wasn't related to Slytherin mentioned in the books that was a Parseltongue.

Speaking to snakes isn't a sign of being the heir to Slytherin, it is a rare power, usually associated with the Dark Arts. Several people could speak to snakes that weren't Slytherin's heir

dumbledore didn't know about the chamber of secrets - he thought that Aragog killed everyone

dumbledore probs suspected tom... but didn't have the proof

JKR says not many people can talk to snakes, how was Dumbledore to know that there weren't more students who could talk to snakes in the school, he wasn't the headmaster back then only a teacher

Dumbledore didn't know that you had to speak parseltongue to enter the chamber. He only found out after Harry discovered it.

no dumbledore changed things around so only harry would be safe there

Isn't it the charm was put in place as long as Harry was residing with a blood relative of is mothers? In which case Voldemort being ressurected with HP's blood wouldn' matter :)

I'm quite certain that this is not a plot hole as Dumbledore explains in HBP that he put the spell in place over the Dursley's house, that it didn't have anything to do with Harry's blood protection.

The protection on the dursley house was put there by dumbledore, it had nothing to do with harry's blood.

I'm not sure if this is the answer but i have several theories 1) The protection of the dursleys was casted by the Harry's mother so Voldemort being resurrected with harry's blood wouldn't really have anything to do with bypassing the dursley's home. 2) It might be because its not so much as a physical matter, but a charm sorry if im mistaken

wormtail and voldermort were in love so voldermort let wormtail use his wand

wormtail used voldmorts wand

^dear voldy didnt have body strong enough to hold his wand up but still needed cedric dead so he made wormtail do it with his wand.

but voldemort wouldnt let lucius use his wand, so why would he let a coward with questonable allainces use it?

^ No, Harry was right. Peter didn't willingly kill Cedric. Voldemort told him to and let him use his wand, so technically, Voldemort DID kill Cedric. In crimes, the instigator is the one who is blamed for the murders rather than the murderers.

remember when wormtail kills cedric...... and then in the rest of the books harry says it was voldermort who killed cedric.... is it cause harry is retarded?

Wormtail's wand is knocked out of his hand and caught by Sirius or Lupin so Peter never got his wand back so he would have had to of used Voldemorts

Wormtail used Voldemort's phoenix feather wand to kill Cedric Diggory in Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire.

Hogwarts is the safest place in the wizarding world right? That means you can't just come and go as you please- either by apparation or portkey. Only Dumbledore can lift the restriction on portkeys and apparation. He did so during the Maze trial, so that the champion could use the cup to get back out of the Maze. but Moody/Crouch tampered with it. So he couldn't make a portkey at any point in the year, only during that select time, so harry had to be a champion.

As someone else noted in one of the questions above, they needed it to seem like it was an accident because none of the other death eaters were supposed to know that voldemort was going to return

yah what the...it was quirrel, anyway though voldemort could have been drinking it through quirrells mouth

What the hell! Lupin is not Voldermort!

Where the heck did you get Lupin?

Voldemort/Lupin?????

Yeah. Voldemort wasn't physically on the back on Quirrell's head. It was a kind of possession. His soul latched onto Quirrell's.

Quirrel was drinking the unicorn blood FOR Voldemort. And Quirrel died because of Harry's Mother's sacrifice. Voldemort couldn't touch him without dieing, and that includes any being he was possessing. He could touch him after he was resurrected because he used Harry's Blood as "the blood of the enemy" which basically canceled out the protection.

I think there should be story, like Dumbledore stealing the wand by sneaking in Grindelwald's house or something that was not just a duel, I think the stories of Dumbledore should be revealed.

He disarmed him... and the wand gave him allegiance to him.

Remember that this was not a duel between two wizards who hated each other - it was between two wizards who were once very close friends (and perhaps even more than that). I doubt that Grindelwald was trying to kill Dumbledore, or vice-versa. Grindelwald may very well have simply surrendered in the end, having seen that there would be no way to win except to kill Dumbledore, and he just couldn't bring himself to do it.

The same way Malfoy defeated Dumbledore wihtout killing him - he just took the wand away.

if you read the end of the deathly hallows, you would know that you just have to disarm them basically, as malfoy disarmed dumbledore and harry disarmed malfoy. thats where voldy went wrong by assuming that snape was the owner of the elder wand because he killed dumbledore but it was harry because no one disarmed him between him disarming malfoy and the end of the book. you should really consider paying attention to the book before submitting plot holes.

alsooo its not necessary to kill... its stated by ollivander in HPTDH that to posses a wand its only necesarry to beat the previous wner so its alliange will change... and this hols true for every one :)

Same as the cloak, the Hallows weren't as infallible as LEGEND suggested

it would of, but Fawkes (not sure if I spelled that right) healed him. Therefore the horcrux was not killed.

Harry was brought back by Fawkes, the Phoenix Tears being the remedy to the venom, meaning the Horcrux (in this case Harry) still in tact.

Harry was healed by phoenix tears but Voldy got his blood link in GoF when PP put Harry's blood in cauldron, so if he died, he wouldn't be able to come back as he did in DH

JK had answered this. Harry was healed by phoenix tears before he was totally destroyed..

because the pheonix tears, toke out the venom.

because the object carrying the horcrux has to be destroyed inorder for the horcrux to be destroyed, and the fang didnt kill harry

No, Harry came back in DH because part of him was still alive in Vold. Vold killed his own Horcrux in Harry when he killed Harry. But when he took Harry's blood to live in GOF, he set the stage for his own defeat, as long as he killed Harry first. Had he not, Harry could not kill him, thus he had to die: To destroy the horcrux yet remain alive. This one took me a bit to wrap my mind around.

Harry Came back in DH because he was the master of the Deathly Hallows

Maybe he would've....maybe Fawkes actually saved Voldemort and Harry at the same time with his tears.

Basically this is because Harry didn't die, therefore the Horcrux was not destroyed. You could say he didn't die in DH either, although it could be argued that he did, and it was the blood link to Voldemort that allowed him to 'come back'

you idiots are goin on about fluffy like its hagrids normal dog, FLUFFY IS hagrids giant THREE HEADED DOG BLOCKING THE TRAP DOOR, DROOLING ON PEOPLE? I DONT THINK SO, but yes i agree it was probebly moved out as it wasnt there before the stone

they mentioned him he ran away because of the noise, i assume he hid somewhere though out the battle

thats a good point! i bet J.K. would have mentioned hagrid setting fluffy lose if she would have thought of it.

^ I dunno, I laughed. It's a better response than "Who the hell is Fluffy?"

^ Uh, guest above? I doubt any of these people would be having this discussion if they didn't appreciate the books, and besides, no-one is denying that the books are amazing. I'd say wanting to know every little detail of the story indicates admiration rather than negativity...

He discovered XM radio, and hasn't awakened since.

Fluffy would've been a great help. He could have drooled on everyone.

Hagrid realised Fluffy in the Forbidden Forest.

For anyone who doesn't know, Fluffy is a three headed dog.

Fluffy isn't really signifigantly mentioned after the first book, so maybe he was moved out of Hogwarts, seeing as he wasn't needed to guard the stone anymore. Who knows, he might have gone to Gringotts, and taken the place of the dragon Ron Hermione and Harry freed?

Who the hell is fluffy? That's not a plot hole thats just a charcter not worth mentioning.

With Hagrid

Irrelevant

Because the Gamp's law says you can't conjure food, not that you can't conjure things important for human survival?

Um... it kind of beats the point of having dozens of concealing charms if you've got salmon flying toward you left and right. I mean, I know they're in the woods and stuff, but you don't know where the salmon is whizzing from; it might pass somebody, Muggle or otherwise. Either would be bad. Also, I have a bigger question. You can't conjure food; why can you conjure water (Aguamenti)? Water is much more important to human survival.

good point!

Regarding above ^... Hermione and Harry probably DID start fishing that way after they saw Tonks and company do it. It may not have occurred to them to try it before. Remember, these were 17-year-old kids, and none of them were particularly experienced at wilderness survival. They're not going to think of everything.

What I want to know is why Dean, Tonks and their crew was able to "accio" salmon out on the river not 20 feet from them 5 minutes later. Couldn't Hermione take a chance on some magical fishing as well?

Dumbledore would have magicked the tea and cakes from the Hogwarts kitchen. Food cannot be conjured at will, as we learned in DH. Perhaps you have to 'own' the food being conjured, or be in a certain proximity. To be honest, there are bigger, more worrying plotholes to be thinking about.

Forget multiplying food why didnt she just whip the food out of thin air, in book 4 after the article of hagrid being a half-giant came out, Hermione, Ron, and Harry went to hagrids hut and Dumbledore was there and he "twiddled his wand" and magiked a tray with tea and cakes....so food can be conjured at will?

If you look at what Ron says about the fish they catch, he says: "Don't multiply this, it's disgusting." or something along those lines after Hermione talks about Gamp's laws. I must admit this one struck me as I read it. Surely though, it would be better to have a lot of disgusting food in your belly than just a little bit? Mrs Weasley can "make good food appear" out of thin air according to Ron, and Hermione corrects him and says you can only multiply and make more of what you already have. If memory serves, I recall Mrs Weasley filling a pot with onion soup conjured only from the end of her wand. She might have been like, warping it from somewhere else or something though, iuno. Still pretty flimsy though.

Gamp's law does state you can multiply food, but if they were super-hungry, they probably just ate it without thinking.

You can multiply food if you have it... that's one of the exceptions to Golapalotts law. But at that time, they thought Harry might still have the trace on him (It was really because Voldemort's name was taboo), so they didn't dare do magic or they would risk revealing themselves.

One of the five elemental laws of transfiguration, I guess?

Mentioned in the book, one of Golapalotts (?) laws

"Making movies isn't about doing what's easy." Is it about doing what's RIGHT? ;)

It's not like it was complicated CGI...It was simple effect makeup. So, no. Making movies isn't about doing what's easy.

how is this a plot hole?

If you read they said he did not even have a trail no way to prove himself innocent.

You can alter Pensieve memories, dude. Sit and imagine for a second that you're a clown and you're riding on a miniature pony through a Brazilian marketplace. Congratulations, you can now put that memory/thought in a pensieve. Remember Slughorn's memory with Tom Riddle?

Sorry, plothole. How easy would it have been for Sirius to conjure up a flask or vial and then extract the necessary memory and then conveniently place it where Lupin could find it with a note that said "WATCH ME IN A PENSIEVE" once he got to Hogwarts in the first place? Heck, he could've done this in the moments he stood there after Pettigrew set him up. Big, Plot hole.

he was thought guilty remember he came quiet about it because he felt responsible

If you reread the books correctly, EVERYONE thought that Sirius was James' and Lily's secret keeper for the Fidelius charm. The only people who knew that Sirius switched to make Pettigrew the Secret Keeper were Sirius and James. No one else knew that Sirius and James had made Pettigrew the secret keeper for the Fidelius Charm. They all still thought that Sirius was the secret keeper. Therefore, when Voldemort killed Lily and James, everyone thought that Sirius had told him. It wouldnt be hard to think of him as a loony mass murderer if you didnt know that it was Pettigrew who did all the double dealing and faked his own death.

When you look at the picture of the Order, Peter Pettigrew was in it too as one of the old members of the Order and if you remember he was the one that betrayed Harry's parents and they knew there was a spy among them, they just happened to get the wrong guy when Peter went and faked his own death.

They all thought in POA that he had betrayed them and become evil. It was only until the end of the book that they discovered the truth.

This is probably a case of the Black family name working against him. Sirius came from a long line of dark wizards and his brother was a Death Eater. And remember that Peter Pettigrew was also a member of the order and one of the Potters' closest friends. Given what they knew, the most reasonable conclusion was that Black had fooled them all throughout school, and he really was a murderer working for Voldemort. It was the wrong conclusion, of course, but one couldn't fault any of them for making it.

no one knew Sirius was good. None of them had actually seen him "kill" pettigrew so they would have thought that the eye witnesses were correct.

This is just silly... what, Hitler didnt kill any Jews and Charlie Manson is a hippie saint?

As far as Dumbledore knew and was concerned, it was Voldemort's doing. Do you think Peter would've known or wanted to kill Cedric without him? And I agree with the person above me. You can't exactly say, "Okay, so, Voldemort told Peter Pettigrew (btw he's alive now he was a rat for a while but now we know he's a Death Eater) to kill Cedric..."

Well think about it logically, would it be wise to contradict so many theories at once. Voldemort is back. Peter Pettigrew is alive and he killed Cedric. The students hardly believed the first point. They would think dumbledore's gone mad!

does wormtail actually kill Cedric in the book, he does in the movie but in the book isn't the pain of harrys scar too much that he can't see what happened, so when wormtail was holding voldy, voldy could have been holding his wand and killed Cedric. he can still kill cos didn't he kill frank Bryce

yes wormtail did the actual killing but if it wasn't for voldemort he wouldn't have been killed, voldemort is responsible.

He couldn't have credited Wormtail with the murder, because then he would have had to explain that Sirius is innocent and that Pettigrew is still alive - all without any proof - and that just makes the story seem that much crazier. It would also put Dumbledore in league with Sirius in the public's eye, and Sirius was, at the time, still believed to be a crazed mass murderer. Furthermore, saying Voldemort murdered Diggory is not entirely incorrect; Diggory was killed on Voldemort's command, and just as we say that Hitler killed 6 million Jews (while in reality, he probably never laid a hand on one of them), we can say that Voldemort killed Diggory by ordering his death.

Yes, wormtail preformed the action but it was on voldemorts commands. if it had just been wormtail, he wouldnt have killed cedric. he would have let him live but modified his memory.

Dumbledore di not lie, because when Harry recalled the story back to him he told him it was Voldemorts doing, which i can see why, yes it was technically peter pettigrew but it was Voldemort who found Cedrics existence feeble enough to do away with, giving the order thus leading to his death, also he entire point of the speech was not to add another notch on Voldemorts belt of lives taken but to warn the students of his return and his ever still murderous nature.

hmmm...so it seems ....i missed that part...thnx

Yes they do. When they were talking about what was going on in the cafe, I believe Ron said,"We know what's going on! Voldemort's taken over the Ministry, what else do we need to know?" Upon saying the word, the taboo was triggered, and the Death Eaters came to the cafe.

Supposedly Wortail retreived it for Him.

This has been raised several times and answered in several ways.

-_- Can you actually learn how to spell so that we can understand this?

The real point is that the elder wand can not hurt its master which is harry thats why it only killed the part of voldemort inside harry

harry intended to die so died unconquered duh...

^^Thank You.

Wandlore is a deeply complex field of magic; so says Ollivander, who would seem to know what he's talking about. The rules that govern how a wand changes hands are not always crystal-clear. The manner in which the Elder Wand changes owners seems to be even more complex, perhaps because the wand itself has in some ways acquired a will of its own. Draco had won the wand, but never held it or used it; therefore, his claim over it may have been weak, and the wand transferred itself to Harry more easily than it might have otherwise. Pure speculation, of course, but it makes a certain amount of sense.

Per the above comment: But that's not what the book says. JKR explains that Harry DOES end up master of the Elder Wand, so even if you think that some other line of reasoning makes more sense, it doesn't make it true. Personally, I think what JKR says is more imaginative, interesting, and complicated. Also, your opinion doesn't answer the problem, because it is clearly explained to us that Harry IS the master of the Elder Wand.

I actually do not think Harry is the true Master of the Elder Wand. Draco disarmed Dumbledore, which I guess made him the master as the wand recognizes the higher power. Because Dumbledore was severely weakened at the time, Draco was stronger by comparison. So the wand switched allegiance. Even when Snape killed Dumbledore, the wand had already passed over to Draco, so it made no difference. When Harry PHYSICALLY WRESTLED the wand from Draco, I do not believe that made Harry the wands owner. If that's the case, the next time someone psychically snatches Harry's wand when he doesn't want them to, they'd be the elder wands owner, which could be very dangerous. I would more think that Draco is still the Elder Wand's owner, and because the Elder Wand recognized Draco's as the one who defeated it before (when it disarmed Dumbledore) it protected Harry. If it had been any other wand but Draco's, I doubt the Elder would have protected Harry.

no dumbledore didnt, he expected snape to kill him, malfoy suprised him on the tower

By the above logic Draco shouldn't have been master of the Elder Wand because Dumbledore INTENDED to be disarmed by him.

Harry was not conquered by Voldemort, because he INTENDED to die. If he had put up a fight, and Voldemort killed him, then he would indeed have been conquered and the Elder Wand would have changed allegiance. As Voldemort found out too late, it is not enough to KILL the master of the Elder Wand; one must defeat him. Harry was never truly defeated.

Actually, both of you are wrong. It is Avada Kedavra.

Because it's called Avada Kadavra

Because "Avada Kadava" isn't a spell.

Voldemort is an expert at legamy, if anyone was even half thinking about killing him he would strike first.

M U G G L E B O R N S, they obviously know what a gun is, so do some half bloods. And just because wizards think mugglestuff is rubbish it dosen't make it any less effective. i.e. a muggle who dosen't believe in magic can still be killed by an AK. However, IF Rowling had Harry, Hermione, Colin, Dean or any other number of muggleborns and half bloods who KNEW about guns use one it would have been a much more anticlimactic ending and not nearly as good a book.

First most wizards do not realy know what a gun actualy does. Second most wizards think mugelstuff is rubish.

its the same as with hitler why didn't someone go up and shoot him... he was to well protected, people where to scared... he was to good, but anyway he didn't need his body he had horcruxs

One might as well ask why someone didn't sneak up behind Adolf Hitler and shoot him. If it were that easy, we wouldn't have evil dictators in the real world.

Or better yet, why not just shoot with a gun? its probably to fast to block with any spell at a distance. Or a sniper rifle?

that wouldn't have solved the problem. he wasn't really alive, just a spirit, it wouldn't have worked, not to mention all the horcruxes that would have kept him alive anyway.

Oh my freaking God!! Seriously this is crap too. Want a straight up answer??? Well here it is: if someone had snuck up behind the guy and killed him, there would have been NO FREAKING STORY!! Think about it, did you read the book to have an ending were someone did the cowardly sneak attack, or did you read it to see the plot unfold with Harry being the Hero? Or did you even read it at all?

You mean the guy who was always surrounded by mad murderers who were willing to do whatever he said? Why did nobody sneak up on that guy? Think about what your saying.

It's highly improbable that someone would be able (and willing) to sneak up on the guy they were too afraid to say the name of.

Yes, but now death eaters would really search for him this time, and he could be resurrected very quickly. It would also be very difficult to succeed this way as Voldemort is allways bound to be looking for someone attempting to take his life. He may also be impossible to kill as a spirit.

Because Voldemort is an idiot who still doesn't understand magic and especially wandlore.

Well what do you think is going to happen?! If a snake kills the person who owns the wand, I'm sure the wand wouldn't actually belong to the snake. I mean, can you see a snake doing magic? o.O

I think a better question is how Grindelwald is the master of the wand just by stealing it!

I think Nagini, as she was a snake and didn't really count as a possible master of the wand, was technically just another weapon of Voldemort.

Even legally speaking in the muggle world :-P voldemort would still be the perpetrator of snape s murder... As to why he thought he had to kill snape instead of just disarm him(when he knew that it would do the trick) one can easily explain that: it s just how voldemort thinks. The same as with lilly potter: "he could have forced her away from the cot but it seemed more prudent to finish them all...". He may have know that it would be enough to just overpower snape (just like grindenwald did to gregorovitch and dumbledore to grindenwald) but to him it seemed more prudent to finish snape all so as to not be any doubt...

Nagini is a vessel for one of his horcrux, so essentially a part of Voldemort. Nagini being non magical , would ofcourse pass it on to the next highest bidder, this being Voldemort, who partly exists in nagini.

Technicality here....Technically when the 1st brother had his throat slit, it was the knife that killed him, not the thief. Because Voldermort commanded Nagini to kill sname it was techically the same as him slitting Snapes throat and therefore the same rules applied.

A snake cannot master a wand because..... it is a SNAKE. Period. Imagine if Harry dies 80 years after the end of the book by flu. Which one of the encapsulated virus produced by his cells would master the wand, I wonder?

It dosen't matter that the snake was a horacrux because so was harry

There's no hole here. Voldemort actually tells snape the wand still isn't working properly for him and that's why he gets the snake to bite him instead because he knows he won't be able to kill him with the wand. As other people have rightly said the snake has voldy's soul within it. Although I dont think he's thought that far. He just thinks if he kills snape by any means then the elder wand will become his.

voldmort has part of his soul in the snake...

Nagini is part Voldemort... Also, Voldemort caused the snakes "cage" to float and surround Snapes head, knowing that Nagini would bite him to death. So... technically, he still killed him.

Snape never was the master of the Elder Wand. The wand's allegiance went from Dumbledore to DRACO MALFOY in HBP and then Harry disarmed Draco in Malfoy Manor so it went to Harry. Voldemort thought it went to Snape cos he killed Dumbledore!

It's clear that Voldemort didn't really understand how the Elder Wand's loyalties worked. He didn't know that you simply had to overpower the former owner. As far as I know, he believed that the former owner just had to be dead, and I guess it didn't really matter how. But it is probable that he did figure out that the Wand couldn't be used to kill its owner (he just got the owner wrong). The plot-hole here, really, isn't the one listed, but the one another commenter mentioned: "Voldy knew you didn't need to kill the owner of the wand because he saw grindelwald steal it and he knew that dumbledore didn't kill grindewald!" That's what I can't figure out. That should have cleared up any confusion Voldemort had about winning the Wand's loyalty.

I'd just like to point out that the weapon you use to kill someone does not change the fact that you are true killer, regardless whether the weapon is a wand, a snake, a gun or a dog. I find the argument that Voldemort wouldn't have used Nagini to kill Snape becuase that could (potentially - to his mind) make her the owner of the Elder wand ludicrous. Nagini, while a living creature, was still no more than a useful tool and weapon to Voldemort.

One must take into account how Voldemort thinks. Pretending for a moment that he was right, and Snape was master of the Elder Wand - yes, Voldemort presumably could have just beaten him up a little, taken whatever wand Snape was carrying, and then the Elder Wand would transfer its loyalty to Voldemort. But Voldemort wanted to be SURE, and killing is not a big deal for him. His only "regret", I imagine, was that he would be losing a useful servant.

Voldy knew you didn't need to kill the owner of the wand because he saw grindelwald steal it and he knew that dumbledore didn't kill grindewald!

In the moment before Snape was killed, Voldemort would have thought that Snape was still master of the Elder Wand. Voldemort likely (and correctly) guessed that the wand would not kill its own master. Since the wand was the only weapon Voldemort had, that left him with the options of (A) beating Snape to death with his bare hands, or (B) setting the snake on him. He went with option B.

Nagini IS (at least patially) Voldemort. So technically, he did kill Snape.

I think we're getting sidetracked here: the stuff about Voldy inadvertently buying Snape more time to explain himself to Harry by killing him with Nagini is irrelevant. The plot hole is this: if Voldy's whole reason for killing Snape is to become master of the Elder Wand, why does he have his snake do the job? Based on Voldemort's incorrect understanding of how ownership of the Elder Wand is transferred—he thinks you have to personally kill the current owner—using Nagini would defeat the whole point of killing Snape. The logical answer, however, is that Nagini is basically just an extension of her master—a third arm of sorts, since she is a Horcrux and therefore infused with a piece of Voldy's soul.

yea but snape didn't do anything wrong to make voldemort mad. voldy wasn't even punishing him.

It's not necesarily about killing the last owner- it can be if you overpower them. Snape was obviously overpowered by Voldemort. So I guess he thought it didn't matter? Also, maybe he just wanted to make it painful for Snape. Maybe by then he realised that the actual death wouldn't be the worst punishment.

what about the part where voldy had to kill snape himself then. this thing is also connected with the plot hole of the elder wand's allegiance. nargini killed snape. not voldemort. did voldy think that ordering nargini to kill snape would make him the wand's true master when he clearly said that the elder wand belongs to the wizard who killed its last owner? remember it was also a time when nargini's security was a top priority and he had to be kept highly guarded inside a magic barrier. -author

first of all, voldemort didn't know snape would tell harry or know the info that snape knew. second, voldemort does kill people with nagini, he attempted to kill arthur weasley in the 5th book.

the jinx was wearing off.

I'm pretty sure it is noted in the narration that the jinx wore off...

is it not entirely possible that he tought for a year, went on a year vacation, then tought another year to circumvent the curse which would explain why he is the only one to die.

comment above ^ slughorn taught POTIONS in HBP, the carrows taught Dark arts in DH. Slughorn was still teaching Potions at this point. he never taught Defense against the dark arts...

And what about Slughorn? He taught in HBP and in Deathly Hallows, before the curse was lifted....

Well that's a convenient cover-up.

JKR explains this on her website- Quirrell was previously teaching Muggle Studies.

Not to mention that there are plenty of "bad" wizards who didnt even go to Hogwarts. Obviously Grindelwald "went bad" and wasnt a slytherin seeing as he attended Durmstrang!

The statement is clearly that all wizards who "go bad" were slytherins. Anyone who says otherwise would do well to take a logic class. That being said, it was clearly just someone's biased opinion. It should be obvious that all people, regardless of house, are capable of having bad thoughts.

Hagrid is saying that, every wizard that went bad was in Slytherin. He is NOT saying that everyone in Slytherin went bad. Btw, I think Ron says it, and even if he had known that Sirius was in Gryffindor, he wouldn't've remembered at that one moment when he told Harry,

@2 comments above; Sirius did not originate in the Prisoner of Askabam, he is mentioned in the first chapter of the first book. Many other characters such as Mugundus Fletcher (almost definitely spelt wrong) and the Lovegoods are mentioned books before they actually appear meaning she had at least some ideas where she was going with the plots and plans of when to introduce characters

If he had mentioned Sirius he would have opened up a whole can of worms. Even in the 3rd book other people try to cover up to Harry about Sirius and he finds out he's his godfather by accident in the Three Broomsticks. Can you imagine the questions harry and co would have asked Hagrid if he told them there was a death eater Gryffindor?

For sure I can tell, Sirius was originated later than the publishing of the first book. I'm damn sure, JKR never thought of her later plots when she was writing the first ones. Though she always says she concieved the whole thing at once.

hagrid's statement is not fact it a generalization

Come on guys--this is an error, not a plot hole. It doesn't affect the story at all.

That statement is also just Hagrids opinion and perception.

It doesnt mean every bad wizard was in Slytherin it means everyone in Slytherine went bad (which was obviously an exageratin. Ex: Regulus Black)

If you want facts, go to Hermione, not Ron. This is emphasized by how stunned everyone is when Ron recites his knowledge of Gamp's law. Probably just some general exaggeration. How would it sound for him to say "..with the notable exception of Sirius Black, of course." Rowling is known for planning ahead, she probably could pull of something like that and get away with it...maybe out of Hermione's mouth right behind him?

To the fourth comment, Hagrid said this in the book, Ron said it in the movie.

Couldn't it just be that JKR was trying to write a book in which charaters are realistic and act like actual people? Real people make crazy, outlandish generalizations all the time, even if they're "good" people, like Hagrid. So I don't think it's a plot hole, just showing that prejudice exists in their world as in ours.

Wormtail was in Gryffindor

Just because Sirius was in Gryffindor doesn't mean he can't go bad. All it says is that most people in Slytherin went bad, doesn't say about anything else. Anyway the houses are too influential on the person. Malfoy thinks he has to be a Death Eater because he's in Slytherin and because of his parents when in actual fact he doesn't want to do it or he would have killed Dumbledore in the 6th book/film

I see this happen a lot when people are reading a book and get confused as to what the "facts" are, as defined within the universe of the book. Unless the information is given by the narration itself, it can not be treated as a plot hole. Hagrid's (or any character for that matter) opinion does have to be true or false, just like how any persons' opinion in reality is not necessarily true or false. Said line is the book for purposes of character building (of Hagrid in this case), not for purposes of defining the facts within universe of the story.

this is mentioned many times in the first 2 books and is stated as fact this is actually a genuine plot whole welldone

Hagrid didn't say that, Ron did. And Ron was 11. Even if Hagrid DID say it, it would obviously be exaggeration.

no. he is saying that every wizard/witch that has "gone bad" WAS IN SLYTHERIN. Its just Hagrid making a generalization, or a very minor inconsequential mistake on JKR's part. not a plot hole.

Well done, this is your first genuine plot hole.

The wording is a bit misleading, but I don't think he was saying that all bad witches and wizards came from Slytherin. He's saying that everyone who was in Slytherin ended up going bad. Perhaps this was a deliberate error by Rowling to show that Hagrid is not highly intelligent.

because every body envys him, plus he said he chaged him back not cured him,

Lockhart could steal actual stories and then also make things up. It's okay.

Lockhart was a liar and a fraud. Some of those spells he actually took and some he made up - like the way to get rid of doxies and fix broken arms.

But Lockhart specifically SAID he stole stories from the witches and wizards who ACTUALLY did that stuff! Which means Lockhart KNEW the cure for Werewolf-ism and he didn't tell anyone. BUT, if he KNEW it, and he wrote about it, why didn't ANYONE go up to him and say "hey! you know the cure? TELL!" Plot hole.

Even if one wizard had discovered a spell to stop werewolves, it doesn't mean Dumbledore knows it. We only know an incantation which may not be enough for the spell to work, or may not be real. We can't even assume that this story is real.

It's not the first time Lockhart claimed to know a spell that didn't work. (Cornish pixies, anyone?)

A spell too challenging for Albus Dumbledore to use on Lupin at some point? Or any one of the other dozens of highly skilled teachers at Hogwarts? Even if it's only a cure for one full moon, wouldn't logic have said, "Fine. Every month Dumbledore will perform the spell on Lupin to make him safe since a single spell is much more reliable than a week's worth of potion every night."

I don't know about you guys, but when I read that part, I assumed that it would cure him until the next full moon, and Lupin couldn't use it because it was a challenging spell. If it wasn't, then Lockhart wouldn't have bothered to put this in his book.

like the guy above me said, except for He took the memory from valiant heroes and they can do the 'impossible' . Things are only impossible until they are done, and since Lockhart got the memory, the hero couldn't tell everyone about it. Lockhart had so many other deeds to write about, he never penned down the one about the werewolf. Therefore, in everyone else's mind, it IS still impossible

legit plot hole, seeing as though lockhart explains that all these things did happen, he just questioned the people on how they did it and wiped their memories. so someone did cure werewolfism and rowling forgot.

Lockhart is a liar and a fraud. However there is no one better for the job. It's extremely unlikely that a student will contradict what a teacher tells them- they probably don't know the truth.

It the LOTR "eagles" trap all over again. And the answer is if they can apparate everywhere you just don't have any story to tell. So how could you make it work? Simple the Hogwarts house elf can apparate inside Hogwarts because they work there! And Dobby can apparate inside that cellar because he used to work there. That way you can't use any house elf to break into Hogwarts or Gringotts.

exactly!!!!!!!!!!! instead of making draco take a year to try to get death eaters into hogwarts why did they all just find a house elf and get it that way thats soooooooo much simpler

I suppose none of the characters ever thought about it.

I've always been wondering why in GoFCrouch aka Moody didn't use the Imperius Curse on a house elf to apparate with him to the graveyard :/

"The house elves were too prejudiced against for most to care." This is the answer, the one of main messages of Rwoling is speaking against discrimination. The house elves were ignored for long time, despite of widely known that they own much more power than any human wizard or witch (even than Voldemort or Dumbledore). But the history turned elves against human, with no respect from one to other. This is parallel to the "mudblood-pure-blood" contrast telling the most important lesson of Rowling: it doesn't matter who we are, the more important is what we do. The ability of apparating in Hogwarts (where no one else can do it except Dumbledore) anticipates that house elves are more than they seem

voldemort would have thought elfish magic below him and not thought of it, not many people knew it was possible.

^ ^ Kreacher was probably still very weak after his own experience with the potion, and in no condition to help Regulus. Regulus may also have ordered Kreacher to return without him, to ensure that the locket would be destroyed.

On a similar note I'd always wondered why Kreacher didn't take Regulus back with him from the cave when they switched the lockets. He let him be dragged away by inferi, instead. I am under the impression that the potion doesn't kill instantly since it didn't to Dumbledore, but even if Regulus was dead right away, you'd think Kreacher would've wanted to take his body back instead of letting poor Reggie become a hideous inferi himself, or just rotting at the bottom of that freaking lake.

It was important to escape Malfoy Manor, no?

And also, the house elves are not supposed to be seen by any of the others... They clean the dormitories in the absence of students only... Very rarely are they seen... And who in Hogwarts ever cared about the house elves(other than Hermoine)...?

If you remember from the 7th book, a lot of weight is placed on the fact that Harry treats other magical creatures as, for lack of a better term, equals. Many in the wizarding community do not recognize that Elves and Goblins and other creatures have magical ability that rivals their own. I guess you could say they're think they're morally superior, even if, when questioned, they would claim not to be.

It can't be true that someone needs knowledge and ability of house elf magic to apparate along side them, otherwise how could Kreacher have brought Mundungus back in book seven? I think the most likely explanation is that the elf could apparate into hogwarts but a human trying it with them would be prevented.

House elves have a different kind of magic. Side along apparating with them would require knowledge and ability in house elf magic. Like always, a barrier can be set up to prevent side-alongs among house elves

The house elves were too prejudiced against for most to care.

Not 100% sure, but i think the charms around hogwarts prevents a student to apparate in/out of hogwarts so even in side along apparation a student couldnt apparate because hogwarts would detect a student apparating into/out of hogwarts

maybe no-one thought of making a side-along apparation with a house elf. lol, maybe the charms put on Hogwarts prevented it! We know it prevents normal apparation, we also know that HGouse elves have a special, powerful sort of magic that allows them to break through these enchantments. But Hogwarts is protected by not just Dumbledore, but All the other powerful teachers. Maybe, with all their magic put together, they could have come u with a charm that oprevents side along apparation even with House elves into Hogwarts? who knows. I like the no-one-thought-of-it idea better ;) lol

Yeah, Rowling admits that this is a mistake she made. Actually, she admits she made a few mistakes. I wonder if she'll go back to correct them?

prefects can take away points

Rowling has admitted that this was an error on her part. She joked, "Ron must've been a terrible prefect."

Percy did take points from Gryffindor in chapter 9 of CoS - but not off Harry. He took them off Ron after he saw Ron, Harry and Hermione coming out of Moaning Myrtle's bathroom, which they had been investigating following the petrification of Mr. Norris.

Percy NEVER took points from Gryffindor. He said he would have to report Harry, and the narration says that harry thought what he did was worth five points from gryff. Percy reporting harry may have led to point deduction, but it was not by his hand!

No, he said he can't take points away from OTHER PREFECTS!

I believe that the answer is that Prefects could take away points from his own house.

If I remember correctly, Malfoy takes points away from Ernie Macmillan and Ron tells him that prefects can't take points away from *other prefects* and Malfoy responds that he's a member of the Inquisitorial Squad, and so he can take points away from anyone. Therefore, Percy was legal in taking away points from whoever it was in COS (Ron? Malfoy? I don't remember) because the person wasn't a fellow prefect.

Hagrid is not a Squib. A Squib has NO magical powers whatsoever/couldn't even do it with a wand if they were "given" one. Hagrid likely can't "do magic officially" because he was expelled from Hogwarts. Though that's kind of a plot hole in itself, seeing that it would've been fairly simple to test to see "who" opened the Chamber of Secrets the first time (it's not like Moaning Myrtle just...showed up in Harry's second year. :|

FOR GOD SAKE, IT MEANT GET THERE QUICK. STOP MAKING UP THEORIES THAT WEREN'T IN THE BOOK!

i would guess his bike, than he could have ennchanted it to fly back or something, it doesn't sound like hagrid but there r ways he could have flown.

In Book 1 Hagrid DOES say that he "flew" to get Harry (and not in the "got there very fast" kind of way, in the actual "flying" kind of way). Hagrid is a SQUIB..mostly. The only magic he can do comes from his broken wand inside his little umbrella, and it's usually badly done. He takes Harry away from the island on a little boat that he makes go fast with his broken wand. "Don't mention this to Dumbledore.. Strictly speaking, I'm not allowed to use magic." Since gathering Harry is a very important errand for Dumbledore, it can easily be assumed that Hagrid had HELP "flying" to Harry.

Flew could simply mean he got there quickly.

It might be that Dumbledore "helped" him get there and that it was understood that he would need to take the boat back so as not to be performing magic in front of Muggles. The "flew" comment from Hagrid might be taken out of context. The other day - I told my kid, "I was late this morning, so I flew to work as fast as I could.' It could be that Hagrid merely meant that he "got there as fast as he could."

But in the last book when they learn Voldemort can fly they are in awe, as if it is unusual and powerful magic. Hagrid would never have access to a way to learn such magic having being expelled nor was it ever suggested he was even an above average wizard. Seems like a very legit plothole/retcon if it does indeed say that hagrid flew to the island rather than boating.

snape can fly..... it's probably a learned thing. not something they teach at hogwarts, obviously, but since hagrid was expelled it wouldn't have mattered. it's probably learned in a similar way you would learn to be an animagus.

His explanation for the bike makes PERFECT sense. Plus, if he used the bike 1) it would be there (like he Said) 2) Hagrid says he can't do it again because he wasn't allowed to do magic once he got Harry. Very valid plot hole.

It's not his motor bike, it's Sirius' and he gave it back, it says so in the first book. And I thought in the book it says he used a boat??

Your explaination to why he can't use his motor bike makes no sense.

uhhh with his bike... it flys

Portkey maybe? Or a hover charm on the boat?

Fawkes? :-)

This one is stupid a time turner can only go back twenty four hours not about 60-89. Hermine and Harry were told by Dumbledore.

Who said he did not. But by giving him the locket Harry won his loyalty and willing obedience anyway.

because it cloths u need to get to b set free!!!

^^ person above...that's a silly remark to make! I could just be wearing a skirt and no shirt...that's clothes but, i wouldn't feel particularly covered!

what is the root word of clothes? cloth. a locket is made from metal not cloth. and really, clothing is meant to cover you. would you feel covered if you were wearing nothing but a neckalce??

clothes? it's not made up of cloth

It might not be considered as clothes, but even if it was, Dobby is evidence that he still obeys Harry's orders. Harry just won over Kreacher to his side so he would have stayed obedient and loyal to Harry, especially with the kindness that Kreacher was unaccustomed to.

um... a locket is not a piece of clothing. It's a trinket.

Does a locket count as clothes?

The magical plates at Hogwarts I guess. House Elves make the food, and is transported to the plates. Also, "sandWITCHES". Hahaha.

they probably came from the house elves in the kitchen

They already existed, probably in the kitchens, she just summoned them, rather than conjured them

'@Jimmy: It's so hard to turn a flippin hourglass a couple thousand times it's not even worth doing it to stop a mass murdering wiz-terrorist.' more like a couple billion. he said thousands for a year, not an entire lifetime. and time is a closed loop, not able to be changed.

It was also stated that you are only able to go back 24 hours with a time turner.

things don't actually change when you go back in time, its confusing but if you think about buckbeak never died and neither did sirius

First off, time travel can be a very confusing concept and there are many interpretations of how it would work so I applaud Rowling for even including it in her mythology. But the simple fact is that the way Rowling presents time travel eliminates it as a plot hole. Users of the time turner aren't altering history, they're simply doing what they've already done. They are only able to use the time turner in the present because they are going back to do what they already did in the past. The device has limitations; if the desired effect hasn't already happened, then I assume they are literally unable to use the time turner. I'm sure this point can be argued, but I don't think Rowling overstepped her bounds on this one.

But the absolute first time harry were attacked by the dementors then he couldnt have gone back to save himself because he chould have died then therefore not live on to use the time turner to go back and save himself.

To^ it doesnt even matter if harry and voldy are related unless voly is harry grandfather or something

Hermione says that wizards sometimes go back in time and kill the past selves or there father or something like that. If you look at the wider picture, Voldemort and Harry might have been related because Ron says in the second book that Slytherin lived thousands of years ago and there was not way of telling if they were related or not. Plus from what I think anyway, they were realted because Maravo Gaunt had the ressurection Stone and James Potter had the Invisability Clock.

@Jimmy: It's so hard to turn a flippin hourglass a couple thousand times it's not even worth doing it to stop a mass murdering wiz-terrorist.

This is very complicated. If a wiard stopped Voldemort being born, then he wouldn't have become an evil wizard. No one would have known about him, so no one would have to go and kill him. There would be a paradox, so I don't think going back in time would stop Voldemort, just complicate matters.

It would appear that the time turners can only be used to go back in time a few hours. Hermione turned over the hourglass three times in order to go back three hours. Therefore it would have to be turned many thousands of times just to go back one year.

If you read PoA carefully you realise that time is a closed loop, when Harry & Hermione go back in time they don't actually change anything, they cause what happened (i.e Buckbeak was not actually executed, it wasn't James who conjured the Patronus, it was Harry). Therefore as Voldemort exists in the present nothing can be don ein the past to change that

It's a metaphor for the power of the written word, especially in the life of a young person.

Plus is inconspicuous. It looks like a normal book, and as Voldemort intended for it to be a weapon, he needed something that would blend in with normal school supplies.

I don't think it is: it was his first and he wanted a part of himself (young Tom Riddle) to be it. And we all know of Voldy's ego!

This isn't a plot hole, it's a misunderstanding. It plainly said in the books that they are purebloods, related to the Blacks and Malfoys. They are "blood traitors" because they don't discriminate.

They're not half-bloods, they are pure-bloods, so-called "blood-traitors"!

There right ^ They were always called blood traitors. And ron says that all his family a magic except his Mums Cousin.

They are said to be "blood traitors" and a disgrace to pure bloods, since they are so interested in muggle life and are friends with muggle borns or half-bloods.

They're not. They are pureblood, in DH it is written in Arthur Weasley's file that he is pureblood and his wife is pureblood. Who says they're half-bloods anyway? The purebloodists (for lack of a better term) calls them blood traitors, but that not the same. In fact blood traitor is a pureblood that don't hold the same belief that purebloods are better.

We never hear anything about Mollie's side of the family; Harry's mum was born from muggle parents, who's to say that Mollie wasn't the same.

jinxs nd hexs are undone not spells you're right

I think you can infer that some spells (like jinxs and hexs) are reliant on the caster, and others are reliant on the object that is being enchanted.

^Voldy killed Moody, not Snape.

When did it ever say that Moody had cast the charms, it merely said that the charm was of Moody. If you also recall, the Moody ghost-like charm thing was checking for Severus Snape, the man who killed him. One could easily put two and two together and come to the conclusion that the other OOTP members did this to scare Snape, should he come to Grimmaud Place, thus realising they do not in fact have a plot hole.

If every spell stopped working after the caster died, then how come all those things in Sirius' house still had permanent sticking charms?

that would be a spell reliant on a lving caster ;)

But in HP6, Harry noticed Dumbledore's spell lifted when he died?

I would assume some spells are not reliant on the caster living

Maybe Moody's eye was made by death O_O

If The Cloak is one of the Hallows you think it'd be immune to such a common spell has Homonum Revelio, which it most likely is. And, if Moody could see through Harry's cloak, although it is one of the Hallows (one of the most powerful, magical items in existence), that means his eye is more powerful than one of the hallows. Doesn't it?

DUMBLEDORE CAN NOT SEE THROUGH AND DIDN'T SEE THROUGH INVISIBILITY CLOAKS! he knew they where in hagrids hut because of the way hagrid was talking, and the way hagrid kept glancing at the corner

#1: The cloak is a Hallow and therefore WAS actually "made by death" or, if you can't wrap your head around that-- it is too old for ANYONE to know where it actually came from or how it can do everything that it does. #2: The presence of the cloak, a Hallow, ancient powerful magic, CANNOT be revealed by any spell. #3: Dumbledore can't actually see THROUGH the cloak, he is just incredibly perceptive and can sense when something is hidden right in front of him. Dumbledore is THE MAN. Moodys magic eye can see through it because it was designed to see through things such as invisibility cloaks..and it's a magic eye. The end.

Dumbledore said that he saw Ron because when Harry took Ron , they took off the cloak

He could've seen through it, theres nowhere in the books that say you can't see through it and DD was prob looking for Harry/knew he was there without having to see him. The Hallows weren't actually made by death, thats just the fairy tale part of it.

he couldn (: he just wordlessley used Hommenium Revelio a spell that can detect human presence in a place! thats how he knew harry was thereee

they aren't actually casting spells it was the same with the car, they are using magic but not performing magic

They were creating and testing magical objects, but they weren't necessarily casting spells with their wands. That would seem to be necessary for the Trace to work.

The order could have notified the ministry that they were there.

To add to this though, in the fifth book after harry fights off the dementors, Tonks uses magic to help him pack up...if they only detect magic in the area, how come this wasn't picked up and blamed on harry?

Dumbledore tells Harry in the 6th book that only magic can be detected at a location, not the person who preformed the magic. It is up to the wizarding parents to hold their children accountable for using magic outside of school. They know (or assume) that it is Harry at his Aunt and Uncle's because he is the only wizard in the area.

He's Dobby. He would have done anything for Harry Potter.

he's not harry's elf he can disobey him if he wants

Dobby never actually saved Harry's life. Harry, although he didn't know it at the time, was immortal when Dobby saved him (because of his blood running through Voldemort's veins or whatever the official explanation was at the end) which is why Harry didn't die when Nagini bit him in Godric's Hollow. So Dobby really only saved Harry's friends' lives and didn't technically break his promise :)

^ adding further to my own comment... it is highly unlikely that Snape would have continued to keep Dobby on the payroll, as the idea of paying a house-elf for his work would have seemed absurd to someone like Snape. He probably fired Dobby and sent him away. Dobby went looking for employment elsewhere and Aberforth hired him. Albus Dumbledore had probably mentioned Dobby to Aberforth in conversation, and Aberforth was smart enough to see that by hiring Dobby, he could have a loyal, hardworking, magical employee at one-tenth the price of a human being.

It seems to me that obedience to one's master is a very deeply-rooted instinct within house-elves. Dobby was a free elf, but he was in the employ of Albus Dumbledore. When Albus died, Dobby may have considered his employment contract to have been inherited by the next-of-kin: Aberforth. This also explains why Aberforth knew Dobby in the first place (presumably, he does not habitually acquaint himself with the elves at Hogwarts). It was Aberforth who sent Dobby to Malfoy Manor to save Harry, and Dobby was able to do this because obedience to his employer (Aberforth) was more important than following Harry's instructions from years ago.

Not at all, Dobby is free, he can obey anyone he wants and any orders he wants. A better plot hole is why Dobby didn't disobey Umbridge when she ordered the house elves not to alert Dumbledore's Army that she was coming. Then again, Dobby isn't very good at disobeying orders as a free elf, seeing as he still punished himself.

Your just clutching at straws now aren't you?

Dobby was also working at Hogwarts still, whilst Snape was the Headmaster so he was just obeying Snape.

Dobby was a free elf, he chose to obey Harry but was not bound to

Lol reading all these plot-holes cost me about an hour of my weekend. :)

ron just meant invisibility cloaks, not perfect invisibility cloaks he didnt know

Yes, and also, Moody says he goes through Invisibility Cloaks often enough. But he said that none are perfect. The magic wears off eventually. Whereas Harry's was the only perfect cloak. Which makes nothing greater.

In Fantastic Beasts there's a creature called a Demiguise mentioned. It can "make itself invisible when threatened and can only be seen by wizards skilled in its capture. The whole body is covered in long, fine, silky, silvery hair. The pelts are highly valued as the hair can be spun into invisibilty Cloaks.

I think Ron just meant that invisibility cloaks in general are rare and valuable - he never said that they were infallible. They don't realise that Harry's is special until they are at the Lovegood's house. If any clarification is needed, look under 'invisibility cloaks' in the Magical_objects_in_Harry_Potter page on wikipedia.

just because they're in the mirror doesn't mean their dead, it just means Harry wants to see them

there in the mirror or esrial so there dead !

Sirius also said all the old families were inter related. he was related to both molly AND arthur weasley (they were cousins, several times removed on either side) and the potters were an old family, so harry had plenty of relatives, juts none left on his mothers side.

they could have been killed in the search for james and lily

JK said they were already pretty old when they had James, so it wouldn't surprise me if they died of old age. Therefore, this is not a plot hole.

All the rest of Harry's family have either died or been killed by Voldemort by the time his parents die.

acctually it is...in the first book it is stated that the Dursleys wheree the only family left for harry meaning that his grand parents were most likeley dead

Good point, assume they're dead but this is never mentioned

they say in one of the book something like "they made use of there last few hours of being able to use magic" so u can use it on the train

It's assumed that the train is part of the school grounds.

They can still use magic whilst on the train to and from Hogwarts, as they say in the final chapter of one or two of the books (they talk about them Ron, Harry, Hermione, Fred and George taking advantage of their last few hours of being able to use magic before the holidays by playing exploding snap, I think). By the time Hermione comes to Ron and Harry's compartment in the first book, she could have tried a few spells in her own, as they don't take more than a few seconds each to perform.