@Nefar: I'll concede that wandless magic can be slightly more focused than I suggested, but there's still a real disconnect between desired effect and magical result.

Riddle "moves objects" without a wand - fine. How is it done? Is it a Summoning Charm? Is it a Banishing Charm, or Levitation Charm? Is it some sort of focused Wind charm; does Riddle expel some sort of magnetic charm when he wants metal objects (his harmonica)? When he hurt people, was it a Stinging Hex, some sort of rash curse, or localized burning or freezing charm?

My point is that it doesn't say if his intent was a special kind of hurt; he cared about the outcome, and had no control over how his magic choose to produce that outcome. That doesn't equal "control" IMO.

 

I believe this to be a misinterpretation. I think Dumbledore was referring to the fact that he was hurting people with his magic, which is frowned upon in the wizarding world, not that he was performing magic wandlessly.

 

Wandless magic is possible accidental or otherwise but it's just not as easy or natural as wand magic.So Riddle could hurt people that was because of his strong desire to do so and every other instance of wandless magic (save Dobby's and other house-elves) is brought on by anger, other strong emotions or sufficiently serious danger. It cannot be trusted, it is less elegant (akin to beating someone to death with your hands when you have a nice sharp sword) and most important of all; it is universally ignored by the wizarding world. The majority is always right, well almost always (cough* Bush cough, cough)

 

Proof is where?