I thought Avada Kedavra didn't make a mark?

[Lily Snape]

Scouring the net forums...found some interesting topics..lets see what you make of them

Okay you guys remember in the fourth harry potter book moody said that the Killing Curse doesn't make a mark at all? Well, when voldemort tried to perform that curse on harry it obviously didn't work but it actually DID leave a mark. And remember in the first book I think it was... harry asked dumbledore (or was it hagrid) why he had a scar and he said that that's what happens whena powerful curse hits you. So yea I was just wondering about that.

[daisymiller]

Yeah, but the curse didn't kill Harry. It only doesn't leave a mark if it works. Or at least that's the impression I've always been under.

[Nefarious Scumbag]

I've been under the impression that you guys are freaks for a while...... well, at least one of us has proof to support our claim.

[Lily Snape]

That's not what this board is about, Justin! If you wana crack insults at least post something ON TOPIC! Jeesh.

anyway, Just cause it didn't kill him doesn't mean it should have left a mark, right? I mean, maybe Voldemort messed up, and it wasn't the Avada Kedavra at all..at least, not completely. Maybe he annunciated one part of it wrong and changed it?

[Nefarious Scumbag]

Oh yeah, my master, make a mistake..... have you been smooking the crack? He is infallible!

Also, how many wizards camnn my lord claim to have offed in his day? Enough to say that he's not gonna get the avada Kadavra curse wrong, of all curses, trust me, he's got that one down pat..... I think he said he was even trying to make it non-verbal. That'd suck! But fortunately I'm not on his black list, I'm on his evil one ;D

[daisymiller]

Yeah, it does seem highly unlikey that someone as powerful as Voldemort would just suddenly mess up.

The only problem with this question is that the Killing Curse had never rebounded on the spell-caster before. Harry was a first (that we know of); thus, no one really knows why he was left with a scar. The fact that, when the Killing Curse does work, it doesn't leave a mark, would lead one to assume that, when it does the opposite (i.e. it doesn't work) it would leave a mark.

It's rather simple thinking: when something doesn't get a desired affect, it gets a undesired affect, which is generally opposite of what the desired affect was.

[Monica]

Well, I was sort of under the impresseion that the curse entered his body, and then exited when it bounced back, and it hit Voldemort... So the mark was the place where it entered/exited...

[dolface546]

Well then why is the scar on his forehead? Wouldn't you aim for the heart? I guess since he was a baby L.V. aimed for the highest thing.

[Monica]

I don't think it really matters WHERE you aim, as long as you hit your target...

[Lily Snape]

that's true, but in the books they ALWAYS aim for the heart. So why would he want to get Harry in the head? it doesn't make mush sense, does it?

[daisymiller]

monica said:

Well, I was sort of under the impresseion that the curse entered his body, and then exited when it bounced back, and it hit Voldemort... So the mark was the place where it entered/exited...

From Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire:

" '. . . [Voldemort's] curse was deflected by the woman's foolish sacrifice, and it rebounded upon [Voldemort].'"

The curse didn't enter Harrry . . . . So the scar can't be an exit wound.

[Monica]

Oh.... Well, thats one theory down the drain. Any others?

[daisymiller]

When the curse works, it doesn't leave a mark; when it doesn't work, it leaves a mark . . . .