"It wuz Snape"

[bluesqueak]

No: HPFGUIDX 42254

:
> >Yup, 'it wuz Snape'.
> >
> >Pip
> >Squeak!

Grey Wolf writes:

> There is just a tiny little problem with all these theories about 
> who was there with Voldemort: No-one is supposed to be able to find 
> the house where the Potters were living, since they had cast a 
> secret-keeper spell on themselves. In fact, you can't even suggest 
> that Dumbledore knew the secret, since not even him knew who was 
> the *real* secret keeper, and I assume you need to be guided, or 
> helped in some other way, by the secret keeper to get to the house. 
> Thus, no Snape, no Sirius, no Lupin (a pity! I really liked that 
> idea - it explains neatly Lupin's surprise).

I think that you've answered this objection yourself to some extent 
in your later post # 42246 when you say

> At any rate, the place could be found by non-secret keepers: Sirius 
> knows where the Potters are living, and he is not part of the 
> spell, and so does Hagrid and, I'd imagine, Dumbledore, who gave   
> directions to Hagrid.

Snape could easily have been in the 'need to know' category for the 
very reason I have him in Godric's Hollow - there could forseeably be 
a situation where he finds out that Voldemort has discovered the 
Potters hiding place, but has not enough time to warn them via 
Dumbledore. Possibly the secret is 'hidden' even from the people who 
know it until the charm is betrayed - when they can then go straight 
to the hiding place.

Alternatively, once the Secret Keeper reveals the Secret, the 
Fidelius Charm is completely destroyed, and *anyone* can find out 
where the Potters are. Whoever (possibly Voldemort himself) revealed 
to Snape that the Potters hideout was discovered may have given him 
the address as well.

[Not as odd as it sounds - "We've found the Potters! Somewhere called 
Godrics Hollow, at The Kiln, Voldemort's going there now" is a 
plausible sentence that would alert Snape, tell him where to go, and 
*not* reveal WHO betrayed the Potters.]

Tim A writes:

> I have a different theory on who could have been in the house. 
> Peter Pettigrew. He was the secret keeper. He was in cahoots with 
> Voldemort. Harry heard "Lily, take Harry and go! It's him! Go! 
> I'll hold him off---" (POA, pg 240 US/hb) while learning the 
> patronus with the boggart. Harry assumed it was his father, but it 
> could have been anybody on Voldemort's side whom the Potter's 
> trusted. That's why I think if it wasn't James' voice he heard, it 
> must have been Peter's.

Problem A: If Voldemort is coming to get them, only Peter could be 
the one who betrayed the Potters (*they* know who their Secret Keeper 
is). He'd be the last person to trust if he burst in and told them he 
was just ahead of Voldemort.

Problem B: If 'it wuz Peter', why should it be kept a secret? There 
are [see below] reasons for keeping Snape's involvement a secret, but 
Peter at the beginning of PoA is a supposedly dead hero, who died 
trying to capture the traitor Sirius Black. 

If Hagrid had found Peter in the ruins the assumption by everyone but 
the Potters [and Sirius and Voldemort] would have been that Peter had 
suspected Black and rushed round to try and warn the Potters - but 
was too late. More evidence of Peter's heroism, and absolutely *no* 
reason to hide the fact that there was Someone Else with Voldemort 
and the Potters when the house blew up.

"Ian Malone" (Cooper) wrote:
> I have to say, 'It wuz Snape' is one of the best formulated 
> theories I have heard in a long time. It makes complete sense with 
> the series. I was blown away when all the points seemed to tie 
> together neatly. I am completely ready to embrace this theory.
> 

[Blushes, shuffles her feet, and says 'aww, you should see MAGIC 
DISHWASHER/Spying Game']

Cooper:
> HOWEVER;
>
 
[I KNEW there was going to be a 'However']

> A. Why did the Potter's house collapse? It has been established 
> that AK cannot blow a house to pieces.
> 
> However, at the end of GoF, as Harry is fleeing from the Death 
> Eaters and Voldemort in the Graveyard, one of them casts a spell on 
> him (sorry, don't have the books in front of me, no chapter and 
> page) and he dives behind a grave-stone for cover. The grave-stone 
cracks as the spell hits it.
> 
> Could this mean that certain spells can do physical damage to 
> property? Since Snape is an expert dueller, maybe he went all out 
> on Voldemort, and in turn Voldemort went all out on him, bringing 
> the house down to a pile of rubble.
> 
> But in that event, it would had to have happened AFTER Voldemort 
> AK'd Harry, but he would be in no state to cast spells. It couldn't 
> have happened BEFORE, because wizard or not, Harry wouldn't have 
> survived a house collapsing on him.
> 
> This leaves me saying, hmmm...

Actually, Harry DID survive a house falling on him. So could Snape. 
Wizards do. Neville bounces when dropped out of a window, Hagrid is 
shocked at the thought that a car crash could have killed the 
Potters, I think other posts have mentioned other evidence that 
wizards survive things that would kill a muggle. And in fact, there 
is considerable evidence from World War II and other wars that even 
MUGGLES can survive a bomb hitting and a house collapsing on top of 
you.

The timing for the house blowing up is definitely during/just after 
Voldemort attacks Harry. Voldemort puts Snape to one side, so to 
speak, kills Lily, attacks Harry - and the world explodes.

Why, we don't know. An effect of the love shield? A side effect of a 
rebounding' AK [which has never been done before]?  

Or possibly the earlier fights between James/Voldemort and 
Snape/Voldemort *had* already done some structural damage, and it 
actually took very little force from the final set of spells to make 
the house collapse.

> 
> B. Where did Snape go and what did Snape do that night 
> they "parted  ways" in GoF?
> 
> Dumbledore says Snape knows what must be done, and Snape agrees, 
> then he leaves in a huff. Many people assume he went back to 
> Voldemort's side to start his two-faced spy business again, but  
> this wouldn't make sense with'It wuz Snape'.
> 
> So, what would Snape have done that night?
> 

Haven't the foggiest, frankly [grin]. But I do think that Harry's GoF 
idea that Snape has resumed spying on Voldemort is a herring so red 
you could use it to stop the traffic. 

After PS/SS and Snape trying a counter-curse to save Harry and then 
trying to stop Quirrel stealing the stone, his cover as a loyal 
Voldemort supporter is blown, blown, BLOWN. And it would actually 
have been *easier* to stop Quirrel stealing the Stone if Snape had 
been able to pretend helpful loyalty to Voldemort 'but Dumbledore 
doesn't really trust me, you know, he gave me this job to keep an eye 
on me. I don't know how to get past that dratted dog -do you have any 
good ideas? Oh,and why don't you let me take care of Potter - I 
always hated his father, I'd LOVE to get rid of him for you - oops, 
damm, that spell didn't work, well never mind, I'm sure I'll get 
Potter next time...' 
 
Etcetera. Which is why I think Snape's cover was blown before the 
attempted theft of the Philosopher's Stone, at least as far as 
Voldemort was concerned. As I said, Quirrelmort appears extremely 
unsurprised that Snape was his opponent.


> C. After Hagrid discovered Snape in the rubble, what happened to 
> Snape? He just lost a duel to Voldemort, and had a house fall down 
> on him, certainly he would be in no fine mood to get up a go on his 
> own.
> 

Snape manages quite well in PoA (See Chapters 19 to 22), when he's 
got knocked out by the Trio. Not quite the same damage level, but he 
still manages on regaining conciousness to conjure up stretchers, 
take everyone back to Hogwarts, talk sensibly to Fudge and [MAGIC 
DISHWASHER warning - see post # 39662 for the reasoning behind the 
following] play an undercover tag team game with Dumbledore with the 
aim of keeping the real facts from Fudge. All this AFTER he's been 
knocked out so badly that he was completely unconscious for half an 
hour. Snape is *tough*.

> It is also fairly safe to assume that Snape would have to be gone  
> by the time Sirius arrived, because if Sirius saw Snape at the 
> Potter's house, he would have gone ballistic. So Snape left 
> sometime after Hagrid arrived and before Sirius arrived.
> 

This is in keeping with Hagrid's comment that "I'd had me orders from 
Dumbledore ... Dumbledore said Harry was ter go ter his aunt an' 
uncle's." [PoA UK hardback p154]. Dumbledore knew enough about the 
situation to give Hagrid very specific orders. It's entirely feasible 
that another set of orders was that immediately Harry was rescued, 
Snape was to leave him with Hagrid and get the heck out! (And Hagrid 
was to 'forget' he'd seen Snape).

You see, another big question about That Night is - why did 
Dumbledore send Hagrid? Hagrid is probably not going to be very much 
help in a head-to-head against Voldemort, but for pulling people out 
of heavy rubble there's no one finer. That Dumbledore knew a)that 
Harry was alive b)that he needed to send Hagrid c) he needn't bother 
to come himself, suggests that he had ALREADY received detailed 
information about the Godric's Hollow situation.

Snape, as a spy, would presumably have some means of sending 
Dumbledore emergency information, and would have had plenty of 
motivation to pick a means that didn't rely on capturable owls or 
fires you might be unable to get to because you're tied up. 

Snape, under the rubble, would have known that Harry was alive [trust 
me on this one. A one year old child who's just been attacked by a 
painfully bright flash of light and then found himself in a dark hole 
under a pile of bricks? He'd have been screaming his head off].

Snape, unlike any DE's who might have been with Voldemort, would have 
had the motivation to give Dumbledore the information that Harry was 
alive, Voldemort had been badly weakened, possibly killed, and they 
needed someone good at heavy lifting RIGHT NOW, please.

And then, obeying orders, Snape got the hell out.

> So where did he go, and how did he get away so quickly? The Night-
> Bus? I am assuming that Sanpe was too weak to apparate, but maybe 
> it's just a simple answer. He apparated back to Hogwarts to report 
> to Dumbledore.

Possibly - though not to Hogwarts itself, as you can't apparate 
there. Or possibly back to DEdom, because Dumbledore had realised 
that with Voldemort imitating a wisp of marsh gas there would still 
be a brief time period where Snape could continue undercover, 
possibly to give useful information on who, if anyone, looked like 
they'd continue in their evil ways, or possibly to try and find out 
who was *genuinely* Imperio'd.

I dunno if Snape would have had the strength to apparate - possibly 
Hagrid had used a Portkey to get to the Hollow? Or a broom? If he 
had, and if Snape had to use it, that would also explain why Hagrid 
seems to be a bit stuck when he's working out how to get Harry to the 
Dursley's and ends up gratefully accepting 'Sirius Black's' offer of 
a flying motorbike.

I assume that you CAN'T apparate with a small child - Hagrid possibly 
can't apparate, but I would assume Lily Potter probably could - and 
that would be why she doesn't apparate away. Apparating would have 
left Harry behind, to be killed.

> 
> D. Why does Snape hate Harry?
> 

He doesn't. There, now, I can hear you gasping.

This is a very, very complicated argument, spread over several posts. 
For the record, they are #39273, #39662, #42459. But basically, the 
argument is that Snape's apparent hatred of Harry is a cover story, 
and that for some reason we don't yet know, it is essential that 
Harry believes that Snape genuinely hates him.

Mind you, I don't say that Snape is *nice*. He might well not 
like 'James Potter Jr.' very much at all. But any genuine dislike is 
being hugely exaggerated for cover purposes.

<Snip>
> 
> E. My brain hurts, we are done for this evening.
> 
Nearly. But not quite.

Another interesting little point in support of 'It wuz Snape'.
In PoA p. 265 Snape says to Harry:
"You'd have died like your father, too arrogant to believe you might 
be mistaken in Black..."

How does Snape know James *died* believing in Black? Why does he 
say 'too arrogant to believe you might be mistaken'? If he wasn't 
there, it would be more natural to assume that James died *knowing* 
he was mistaken in Black.

Unless, of course, he rushed in to warn the Potters, telling James 
that Black [who Snape thought was the Secret Keeper] had betrayed 
them; only to have James [who knew the Secret Keeper was Peter 
Pettigrew] say something like "No! It can't have been Sirius!

And then Voldemort arrived, and there was no more time...

Pip


MAGIC DISHWASHER - see posts #39662 for the original, #39854 for Grey 
Wolf's summary, and #40044 for the Spying Game Part II. But reserve a 
spare day for reading all the replies - there's over a hundred!