OOTP Chapter Twenty-Seven: "The Centaur and the Sneak"

[for-diddled.livejournal.com]

* First of all, sorry this is so late, I'm afraid I've been a bit busy preparing to go back to university.

* This is the chapter in which Hermione officially crosses the line from “occasionally strident and self-righteous but on the whole likeable and sympathetic character” to “dangerous sociopath”.

* “‘A gorgeous centaur...’ sighed Parvati.” I must say that, given the, erm, associations of centaurs in classical mythology, this sort of thing rather creeps me out. Is JKR aware of the implications of what she’s writing? Or did she just throw it in without bothering to think it through?

* Hermione’s dropping dark hints about what Umbridge is going to do, revealing the plot like any good author avatar would.

* So Harry can remember the names of centaurs he met once four years ago, but in DH he won’t be able to remember a face from a picture from one chapter to the next. *coughplotconveniencecough*

* Wow, centaurs sure are arrogant and condescending people. No wonder Dumbledore felt enough of an affinity with Firenze to hire him as a teacher. He recognises a kindred spirit when he sees one.

* If I were JKR, I’d be hesitant to dignify the wizarding conflicts with the term “war”. They’re more like gang wars than what most people would think of as warfare. Which is why epic fantasy doesn’t really mix with a “secret magical people in this world” plot. Epic fantasy generally centres around mighty empires, big wars and bloody battles, but these things are generally quite noticeable, and any wizards fighting in large-scale conflicts would be found out pretty quickly. So the wizarding war pretty much has to be low-key to make it plausible that Muggles wouldn’t know about it, and the end result is that we get a lot of build-up and very little payoff.

* Firenze spends the whole lesson teaching them something which he doesn’t expect them to do anyway, and which is anyway a bit uncertain and useless. So he’s about as good as the average Hogwarts teacher, then.

* “Indeed, Harry sometimes wondered how Umbridge was going to react when all the members of the DA received ‘Outstanding’ in their Defence Against the Dark Arts OWLs.” Only kidding, Harry will be the only one to get an “Outstanding” mark, because he’s a Mary Sue just the most awesome DADA student ever.

* Although everybody always goes on about how smart Hermione is, and from what we see of her she doesn’t seem noticeably worse in DADA than she does in other subjects, so if she only got an “E” in her Defence OWL, that’s probably because Harry’s not a very good teacher... :p

* Seamus’ Patronus “was definitely something hairy”. *mind goes into the gutter*

* Hermione’s Patronus is an otter, even though she’s one of the least otter-like people in the series. On a Doylist level, this is probably because JKR’s favourite animal is the otter, so her author avatar will have one as her Patronus, obviously. On a Watsonian level, perhaps Patronuses don’t represent what your personality is like, but what you need to guard you and keep you out of trouble. So Hermione’s is an otter because she needs fun-loving people around her to stop her getting too serious about everything, Ron’s is a weasel because he needs smart people to compensate for his mental inadequacy, and Harry’s is a stag because he needs a proper father-figure to help him, not an abusive one like Uncle Vernon or a scheming and manipulative one like Dumbledore. Patronuses which change when somebody falls in love show that their caster needs to be loved by their intended in order to feel happy and secure again.

* Dobby appears, wearing “his usual eight woollen hats”. I quite like the suggestion that it was this sight that made Hermione drop her SPEW activities, as she saw that her hats were all going to this one elf, and that they were therefore pretty useless from a freeing people standpoint. (Can anybody remember if SPEW is brought up again in this book?)

* Umbridge is here! I bet it’s times like this that the DA wish they had a second, secret entrance from the ROR. That way they could slip away while Umbridge and her cronies sat uselessly in front of the main entrance.

* Draco’s concealed “beneath an ugly dragon-shaped vase”, to match his ugly and monstrous soul.

* Umbridge has “an indecent excitement in her voice”. I wonder if this is how Hermione would sound to those on the receiving end of her little schemes.

* When I first read this scene, I didn’t really mind the “Sneak” curse, because I just sort of assumed that Madam Pomfrey managed to find a way of removing them after a couple of weeks. Then we found out that she still had the scars years later and... yikes.

* Not only is that extremely vindictive, but it doesn’t actually help the DA in any way. It didn’t stop them being betrayed in the first place, and it didn’t alert them to the fact that Umbridge was coming to get them. If this had been a one-off incident and the curse hadn’t been permanent, I’d be inclined to put it down to youthful lack of thought, but when you compare it to some of Hermione’s other actions (her treatment of Rita Skeeter, or sending those canaries after Ron), it seems like a rather worrying pattern is starting to emerge...

* Minerva gets all self-righteous about Willy Widdershins being let off. I wonder whether she feels the same about Mundungus Fletcher, or whether petty crooks are OK just as long as they’re on her side.

* Also, she’s not above a bit of petty corruption herself, since she lets Gryffindor Quidditch players off homework when a match is coming up.

* So Kingsley memory-wipes Marietta to stop her telling. You know, this is exactly the sort of mentality that leads DEs to Imperius people and get them to do their bidding: not caring about your victims’ autonomy, just violating their minds when it’s convenient to do so.

* Also, if they are going to mind-wipe Marietta, why not do it to Percy, Fudge and Umbridge too? That would get them out of trouble entirely.

* And really guys, Umbridge has a list of DA members and access to Veritaserum. Obliviating one witness shouldn’t be enough.

* I’m surprised Umbridge thought she could get away with manhandling students like that in front of Dumbledore. I mean, that man’s just so concerned about his students’ welfare.

* Hermione left the membership list pinned to the ROR wall. Well done, Hermione. Not that any DA members will point out this idiocy to her. Nor will they point out the fact that her defensive jinx was (a) vindictive and useless, and (b) not told about to them when they joined up. Maybe they’re all worried she’ll brand the word “COMPLAINER” across their forehead if they speak up.

* Dumbledore taking the rap is all very noble and everything, but I don’t see how it’s meant to help. Fudge can still charge the pupils with attending, even if they didn’t organise it, and now Dumbledore’s ensured that he’s going to be on the run and unable to give them any help.

* Face-scarring aside, I actually quite liked this chapter. It was quite well-paced, and I never really felt like I was wading through pages of filler. It will be interesting to see if the other chapters will be more like this now the book’s reaching its climax, or whether the quality will slip back down again.

Comments

Re: Marietta's real crime?

[madderbrad.livejournal.com]

She deserved to know what she was signing up for.

She was signing up with a secret club. That's 'secret', as in I-agree-not-to-tell. She knew that. Everyone knew that.

But she told anyway.

It was the *punishment* that Marietta didn't know about. But it's a poor person whose word is gauged reliable only when enforcement is applied.

Imagine this dialogue to understand the full duplicity of Marietta; a simple thought experiment:

Hermione: Okay, we're all going to keep this secret, right? Everyone sign to agree to keep it secret.

Everone except Marietta: *signs*

Marietta: *signs*

Hermione: Oh, by the way, if anyone blabs, they'll be punished with acne.

Marietta: Oh! Oh! I didn't know you were actually going to *enforce* the agreement! I didn't mean it when I signed! I'm going to blab! Betray all of you! For no direct threat, no tangible reason, just indirect pressure on my mother! Can you take my name off the list?

Everyone: What sort of person are you, signing an agreement but then retracting only when you're told that you'll be held to account, and expected to do what you agreed to do?

Everyone: *disgusted with Marietta*

Marietta Edgecombe. Don't trust anything she says unless you have lawyers present and the full repercussions/penalties are outlined in advance.

Re: Marietta's real crime?

[lynn-waterfall.livejournal.com]

Small correction to your scenario:

Hermione: Oh, by the way, if anyone blabs, they'll be punished with acne spelling out a word defaming their character across their face for the rest of their life.

Twins, assorted Gryffindors: Cool!

Non-Gryffindors: (back away slowly)

Re: Marietta's real crime?

[madderbrad.livejournal.com]

Heh. :-)

Either way, Marietta's duplicity and insincerity would have been exposed for all to see. Then and there. Not afterwards, when some people (*looks sideways at Lynn*) are hoodwinked into thinking she's a complete innocent and total victim. :-)

Re: Marietta's real crime?

[lynn-waterfall.livejournal.com]

No. Marietta wouldn't have said anything that stood out from the crowd of dismayed people. Please keep in mind that Marietta didn't go there intending to turn the group in. She went there, kind of unhappily, because her friend wanted company. For crying out loud, if Marietta had been a spy, she wouldn't've telegraphed her difference from the group with things like:

Harry saw Cho's friend give her a rather reproachful look before adding her own name.

Marietta probably would have been the most dismayed-looking, simply because she was the least interested in the group itself. I think Ernie and Zach, at a *minimum*, would have been displeased.

Re: Marietta's real crime?

[merrymelody.livejournal.com]

Along with Hermione's psychotic revenge plan. Notice her focus is on punishing the squealer, over protecting the group itself.

Re: Marietta's real crime?

[madderbrad.livejournal.com]

Yes, I've had to acknowledge that for a while now. I blame Rowling. :-)

It *was* silly of Hermione; it *was* a punishment-after-the-act thing rather than a measure to actually protect the group from being betrayed in the first place. I'm hazy if 'unbreakable vows' and the like would have worked (I'm getting confused between fanon and canon). But I'm sure there would have been some sort of spell to stop Marietta from being a Judas. Or Hermione could have at least tried.

But that wasn't the story Rowling wanted to tell. She "loathes a traitor" - that's what she told fans in an interview once I believe. So Hermione wasn't allowed to consider other options. :-(

Re: Marietta's real crime?

[sunnyskywalker]

The Unbreakable Vow doesn't stop you from breaking the vow, it just kills you instantly if you do.

There is such a thing as a Tongue-Tying curse, although I can't remember quite how it works (if we ever learned).

Re: Marietta's real crime?

[madderbrad.livejournal.com]

There is such a thing as a Tongue-Tying curse, although I can't remember quite how it works (if we ever learned).

Ah, thanks for that. It's mentioned in PS when Harry goes shopping, and is the curse that Moody sets up in Grimmauld Place to stop Snape from talking.

So that's one canon spell that Hermione could have researched and used.

But she just wasn't allowed to by her author. See, it's not Hermione that's evil for scarring Marietta ... it's ROWLING!!

Re: Marietta's real crime?

[oryx_leucoryx]

Good, decent people sometimes think going back on their word is justified. Usually because of something they did not foresee or realize at the time they gave their word. Conditions may have changed, or they may have learned facts that made the action they promised to do a bad idea (or the action they promised to refrain from a good idea, or at least better than the alternative). For this reason completely decent people who are not reckless try to avoid submitting to extreme potential penalties for breaking their word, even if at the time their word is asked for the action or inaction they are being asked to commit to appears something completely reasonable. There is nothing duplicitous about being willing to make a promise but refraining to do so if a heavy penalty is attached to reneging.

Re: Marietta's real crime?

[lynn-waterfall.livejournal.com]

Going back to my "borrowing a dollar" metaphor, Marietta failed to pay back the dollar and found herself attacked by a guy who broke both her kneecaps.

Maybe she should have been told what kind of penalties she'd be facing? Nah, she knew it was a *loan*, after all!

Re: Marietta's real crime?

[sunnyskywalker]

Well, agreeing not to tell about a study group is one thing. Agreeing not to tell no matter how the conditions change after you've signed, and no matter how many things in the group that happen later might give you cause for concern, is something else. And Hermione setting up a long-lasting or permanent facial scarring punishment while presenting the group as a harmless study group most definitely sets off alarm bells - she set up a curse for permanent scarring before the club was illegal, before there could have been serious legal consequences for club members. If she'd set up a harsh secret punishment, but said in the recruiting speech that this was a dangerous and serious venture, she expected Umbridge to start cracking down soon and they could potentially all get in serious, terrible trouble if she knew about the group, then anyone joining could reasonably expect serious consequences of some sort for telling. But saying that it's perfectly fine, but Umbridge probably wouldn't like it so let's not mention it, is not something for which you could reasonably expect consequences like being scarred for life - being shunned, having your homework stolen, sure. But knowing that someone pitched you one thing while setting up harsh consequences suitable for another situation entirely? Sounds like something that justifies concerns about the group.

Put it this way: in many companies, you sign a non-disclosure agreement not to tell company secrets. Now, this is actually more up-front and binding than the DA's parchment, since you know what happens if you tell (you get sued and/or jailed). But suppose you join, say, a computer manufacturing company and sign that agreement, and then later have cause to suspect they're up to something highly illegal and dangerous. Are you still ethically bound never to tell no matter what? This is why we have laws to protect whistleblowers, after all.* And if your employers later came and splashed your face with acid for telling and gloat about it for months, and it turns out they planned that from the beginning back when they were supposedly a harmless, totally above-board company, is that a reasonable consequence to expect if they're really okay people?

*And just to note, what matters here isn't the readers' outside knowledge of what may or may not be happening, but what a character could reasonably believe is happening based on what she sees, and on whether we could reasonably expect her under those circumstances to take any statements her bosses make as good solid evidence she can believe.

Re: Marietta's real crime?

[madderbrad.livejournal.com]

I can see why you put in your footnote, because we readers KNOW that the D.A. never was "up to something highly illegal and dangerous".

The thing is, even though you tried to skirt around it with your addendum ... Marietta knew that too. The most dangerous spell was a Stunner. The kids *weren't* plotting to take down the government.

The absolute worst thing that the D.A. was doing was ... practising spells straight out of the curriculum.

The pressure on Marietta to dob them in just wasn't there. Not to the extent that warranted her betraying 20+ students to an Umbridge who was known to torture those who transgressed school rules.

Re: Marietta's real crime?

[the-bitter-word.livejournal.com]

Well, the group was made illegal, and Marietta knew that. So regardless of what they were doing, perhaps illegal is illegal in Marietta's mind and this created a conflict for her. In her mind, she might have felt she joined the Students for a Democratic Society and ended up in the Weathermen. She perhaps could have stopped going to meetings and braved the wrath of the twins and her friend, who was probably too taken with Harry Potter to listen to her, but maybe "illegal" required a different response from Marietta, one she was trained to make, to go find a cop.

As for plotting to take down a government, the group was happy to call themselves an army. Later on, a group of these students stole school property, invaded the Ministry, and destroyed irreplaceable objects there. Sirius Black ended up dead because they took the law into their own hands, in error and against the attempts of their elders like Dumbledore and Snape to prevent such a thing from happening, attempts Harry, at least, actively resisted.

Did Marietta know Umbridge was torturing students? How many people were aware of that? It wasn't like the movie, where whole classes were being tortured, if I remember correctly.

Re: Marietta's real crime?

[oryx_leucoryx]

The only students Harry knew to have been tortured were himself and Lee Jordan. I have no idea what Marietta knew.

Re: Marietta's real crime?

[madderbrad.livejournal.com]

... but maybe "illegal" required a different response from Marietta, one she was trained to make, to go find a cop.

An unthinking slavish reaction with no thought behind it. Well, she learnt her lesson. :-)

As for plotting to take down a government, the group was happy to call themselves an army.

As a joke. BLAME GINNY! :-)

Later on, a group of these students ...

But not the D.A. That wasn't a DA exercise. It was a friends-of-Harry-Potter exercise.

Did Marietta know Umbridge was torturing students? How many people were aware of that?

Well, it was more than just Harry; a fair part of Gryffindor Tower knew about it, how Lee Jordan (I think) was also suffering the blood quill.

Had Marietta asked about she probably would have found out about the torture.

But I guess she didn't; she just toed the line and betrayed the DA to the fascist evil government toadie.

Re: Marietta's real crime?

[lynn-waterfall.livejournal.com]

An unthinking slavish reaction with no thought behind it.

It took her months to *not* think about it?

A *Ravenclaw*, no less?

Because, after all, she didn't rush to turn the DA in as soon as she learned that they were going to go ahead and meet even after unauthorized clubs were made illegal.

Re: Marietta's real crime?

[lynn-waterfall.livejournal.com]

But not the D.A. That wasn't a DA exercise.

Are you sure? Because...

ʹWe were all in the DA together,ʹ said Neville quietly. ʹIt was all supposed to be about fighting You‐Know‐Who, wasnʹt it? And this is the first chance weʹve had to do something real ‐ or was that all just a game or something?ʹ

ʹNo — of course it wasnʹt ‐ʹ said Harry impatiently.

Then we should come too,ʹ said Neville simply. ʹWe want to help.ʹ

Thatʹs right,ʹ said Luna, smiling happily.

Re: Marietta's real crime?

[madderbrad.livejournal.com]

Yes, I'm sure. Because Neville, Harry, Hermione, none of them took out their magic Galelons and summoned the other members of the DA. Like they'd do if they were conducting an exercise of the DA.

Re: Marietta's real crime?

[oryx_leucoryx]

Well, it was more than just Harry; a fair part of Gryffindor Tower knew about it, how Lee Jordan (I think) was also suffering the blood quill.

Had Marietta asked about she probably would have found out about the torture.


What makes you think non-Gryffindors knew about Lee's torture? And even in Gryffindor only the trio knew about Harry's. (I'm sure Severus found out. And passed it on to Albus, just like the Voldievisions. Of course all Albus did was leave the school to Dolores.)

Luna doesn't report on any torture of Ravenclaws. Maybe there was none, so why should Marietta know of any?

Re: Marietta's real crime?

[madderbrad.livejournal.com]

Come on. Do you really think, had Marietta asked "say, what do you think of Umbridge?" that the other DA members would have told her what was happening?

Lee Jordan's detentions were known. I wouldn't be that sure that 'only the Trio knew about Harry's', either; he was nursing his hand with the murtlap essence in the open common room, after all.

But no, Marietta didn't ask. I guess she didn't want to know. It's harder to dob people in to the firing squad if you know them personally.

Re: Marietta's real crime?

[sunnyskywalker]

I'm not sure the Patronus was ever on the curriculum, actually, although given the shakiness of the DADA teaching and the fact that we missed year 7, it's hard to say.

However, since apparently no one but the Order knows about p-mail, the only other use we know for a Patronus is driving off Dementors. At this point in the story, the Dementors are still acting like they're firmly under Ministry control, and had never joined Voldemort. They're also the legal, official prison guards. They came near the Quidditch pitch in PoA - and then went away and didn't hurt anyone, and for all anyone in the audience knew, they were actually just doing their job and had thought they sensed Sirius Black. The only thing you could hold against them was showing up in Little Whinging, and I'm not sure how much (if anything) Marietta knew about that. If she heard about the trial through the Ministry grapevine, it would be basically that Harry said it happened, and then Dumbledore showed up with a witness who might have been lying (since whether Squibs can see Dementors seems to be in question, and she sure sounded like she was just making it up) and most of the officials were swayed by Dumbledore's presence. That doesn't speak to Harry's guilt or innocence either way, just the biases of Ministry officials. So even if she heard all the trial details, it would be reasonable for her to doubt Harry's story.

So. What we have is a situation where up until this point, they have been practicing standard school spells, mainly defensive, and applicable in a variety of situations (including defending yourself from Fred and George, or Voldemort, or anyone you'd care to name). Marietta doesn't turn them in so long as they're sticking to those spells. The lesson she misses to turn in the DA is the one on Patronuses. The way the book puts it, at that lesson they were "finally" doing Patronuses, which makes it sound like something that had been planned for a while - that is, Harry probably at least mentioned, "I think you're all ready for Patronuses next time!" at the previous meeting. So, Marietta is uncomfortable, but leaves well enough alone as long as they're practicing legal and relatively harmless spells - but then as soon as they start practicing a spell which has no practical purpose she knows but resisting arrest (a Patronus won't drive off DEs, or Voldemort, or even Fred and George), she goes to Umbridge. I think it's an entirely plausible reading that she could just about tolerate keeping her promise and being in an illegal club so long as it didn't require anything more than supporting her friend and practicing perfectly legal spells (how much trouble could you get into for Expelliarmus, reasonably?), but drew the line when the "joke" about the club being an army started sounding less like a joke and she found out they were going to learn how to fight the officially-sanctioned and seemingly well-behaved members of the ww's law enforcement. They were supposed to learn to fight school bullies, exam questions, and/or DEs, not the government, and a rebellious secret paramilitary organization is a totally different proposition than a clandestine study group.

Re: Marietta's real crime?

[madderbrad.livejournal.com]

Oh, Sunny, you're really pushing on this one. I admire your industry, but it's a real long stretch that you've come up with.

Dementors are the foulest beasts imaginable. The Patronus spell is totally innocuous to all but them, and is a charm of goodness and light. To try and make it out that Marietta sees this spell as BAD and NAUGHTY is stretching things way too far.

At this point in the story, the Dementors are still acting like they're firmly under Ministry control

Not so. They'd run amuck several times in book 3, and had almost killed Harry just a few months before the DA's formation. Your whole chain of reasoning again depends on Marietta being a mushroom and not asking any questions, not picking up on anything that is known to everyone else, only aware of the things that help your case and ignorant of everything that weakens it. Shucks, Harry was brought before a full meeting of the Wizengamot and almost kicked out by the Ministry ... and Marietta is such a good girl, listening to her mum, she'd surely know all about that!

Let alone, if she was so uncomfortable about the spell ... all she had to do was *ask some questions*.

So, Marietta is uncomfortable, but leaves well enough alone as long as they're practicing legal and relatively harmless spells -

Okay, so the other excuses - the DA was technically illegal, her mum's instructions were to turn them in - are no longer applicable, right?

Dementors are *prison guards*, not Aurors. They're known by all to be 'the Dementors of Azkaban' (viz book 3). By the time citizens see a dementor they don't have their wands and can't cast a Patronus. The spell is therefore not the threat to the government that you portray.

Re: Marietta's real crime?

[oryx_leucoryx]

Nobody ever said Mrs Edgecombe instructed her daughter to turn anyone in, we said she forbade her daughter to oppose the legal government.

Re: Marietta's real crime?

[for-diddled.livejournal.com]

"The Patronus spell is totally innocuous to all but them,"

So the Patronus spell is totally useless for fighting anybody *except the official prison guards*. And it doesn't seem to be on the syllabus, either, hence Harry being given extra credit for doing one, so they don't even have that excuse for learning it. Suspecting somebody who teaches you a spell which only works against law enforcement officers seems quite reasonable to me.

"Not so. They'd run amuck several times in book 3,"

I think it was twice, once at the Quidditch match, once at the end of the novel. (I may be misremembering; it's been a while since POA.) But anyway, the first time they hadn't hurt anybody, and we don't know how much Marietta knows about the second time. (Knowledge of Harry's exploits seems a bit sketchy among most of the student body.) Besides, both these times were during highly unusual circumstances. The Dementors usually stay around Azkaban, far from areas of human settlement, and there's no evidence to suggest that they pose much of a threat to anybody other than the prisoners.

"and had almost killed Harry just a few months before the DA's formation."

Well, says Harry. Given his behaviour in OOTP, I think Marietta might be justified in not considering him a reliable source.

"Shucks, Harry was brought before a full meeting of the Wizengamot and almost kicked out by the Ministry ... and Marietta is such a good girl, listening to her mum, she'd surely know all about that!"

Oh, come on, Harry's main witness looked very much like she way lying, and Harry only seems to have gotten off because the court was swayed by Dumbledore's personal influence and the incompetence of the prosecution. Why should Marietta trust the court's verdict? Especially since the wizarding justice system seems more based on nepotism than disinterested pursuit of the truth.

"Let alone, if she was so uncomfortable about the spell ... all she had to do was *ask some questions*."

Yeah, but look at what Fred and George threatened to do to Zach Smith when he started asking questions. And given what we see of their behaviour, they'd probably have been fully prepared to carry out their threats. Frankly I think I'd be a bit reluctant to ask questions in Marietta's place.

"Dementors are *prison guards*, not Aurors. They're known by all to be 'the Dementors of Azkaban' (viz book 3). By the time citizens see a dementor they don't have their wands and can't cast a Patronus. The spell is therefore not the threat to the government that you portray."

It could still potentially be used for some prison-break scenario if a conflict did break out between Dumbledore and the Ministry.

Re: Marietta's real crime?

[oryx_leucoryx]

As for the dementors: Forget about what Harry knows and thinks, consider what it looked like to outsider students or to someone at the Ministry. The dementors were at the school to catch Sirius Black, mass murderer, escaped prisoner. It was the insistence of the headmaster that kept them from searching the school and doing their job properly. Only about a week before the Quidditch game Sirius Black managed to enter the school and reach the portrait outside Gryffindor tower. (Surely if only dementors were given access to the school itself he would have been caught there and then.) That the dementors approached the Quidditch field meant they sensed Black's presence there (they'd be right to think so - Sirius was watching the game in his dog form). That a student nearly fell off a broom is unfortunate but part of the risk of playing Quidditch in a storm anyway. The dementors weren't after him - they were after Black. For some unclear reason one boy is a bit oversensitive to the presence of dementors, but then weird stuff is always happening to him.

The dementors were well behaved then and were still well behaved until one night in June when they attacked kids who for unclear reason were with Black and later made outrageous claims about Black's innocence (also something about poor, heroic Pettigrew being alive and villainous and what not). Black must have used some Dark Magic to get the dementors to attack the kids instead of him (while also planting odd ideas in their heads). So basically, the dementors are safe unless commanded by a Dark wizard.

Yes, Marietta heard about Harry's trial. Where he was cleared because of that Mrs Figg's perjury and Albus' personality. No real evidence that Harry actually faced dementors in Little Whinging.

By the time citizens see a dementor they don't have their wands and can't cast a Patronus.

Unless they are sneaking to free someone.