So what’s your point, Jeep’s Phoenix? And in words, please. I have no idea what point you’re making with your smiley.
Actually, my first inclination is that the truth serium (vertaserim?) is the logical choice for most of the problems and answers in the book. However, I’m unsure if it would actually prove Harry’s case that he had in fact seen Voldy. Basically, what it makes you reveal is what YOU believe to be true…not necessarily the truth. Remember, they put Barty Crouch’s boy under the stuff, and he related everything…and wasn’t believed because the minister thought he was off his rocker. Basically the same would go for Harry. Even if under the serium, he would only relate what he BELIEVED to be true. And if you thought he was crazy (which a lot of them did if memory serves…crazy AND disturbed) then you wouldn’t believe anything he said anyway.
A better way I suppose (or an alternative way) would be to get Harry to put his thoughts in the memory bowl (who’s name escapes me)…unless he was totally delusional, such memories could be reviewed and would show the actual events he witnessed…not just what he THOUGHT he witnessed (I’m assuming that said thoughts wouldn’t be corrupted by mere belief). Once the thoughts were in the bowl, everyone could take a good look at the entire sequence and see for themselves.
I guess its difficult for the author to keep things straight when magic is used as far as keeping things consistant. Its one of the strangenesses of the book that there are powers that would solve many of the problems, but they don’t seem to be used in a consistant way.
However, I still love the books and can’t wait for the next one. With this series I just have to put logic on the shelf and enjoy. 
-XT
The pensive(sp?)…thats it.
-XT
I’ve read all the books myself, and I failed to notice the complete lack of consistency you seem to have found. Yes, there are certain inconsistencies; one of the biggest I can think of is the sequence in which Harry’s parents emerge from the wand in GOF (corrected in later editions). In any case, the “plot holes” and such not so severe that readers – or the author, if you’ve looked at the FAQ on her website lately – can’t find a way to explain them (or at least have a good time trying).
If there were truly no consistencies as you claim, the books would be unreadable.