Snape's DE past/ What is he up to?

[fun_n_games_2663]

No: HPFGUIDX 44380

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "Sydney" <sydpad at y...> wrote:
> Just a quick note from a newbie-- like Eloise, I had formulated a 
> little theorie-ette to smooth over the difficulties of Snape's 
outing 
> at the tribunal.  The only way I could make sense of this is by 
> assuming the trials were covered by some kind of secrecy 
> charm, rather like the Fidelius-- everyone in the court room knew 
> what happened, but where constrained from revealing it if the 
> subject was aquitted.  
> 
> The fly in this ointment though is the end of GoF, where Fudge 
> says (hang on, I'll go grab my book...)
> 
> "'You are merely repeating the names of those who were 
> aquitted of being Death Eaters thirteen years ago!' said Fudge 
> angrily, "You could have found those names in old reports of the 
> trials!"'
> 
> Any way around this?  Is Fudge ever-so-evil, and knows perfectly 
> well that Harry couldn't have obtained these names that way?  Is 
> he too hysterical to think clearly?  Or is Snape's spying public 
> knowledge, and he merely dodges assasination attempts every 
> other Wednesday?
> 
> 
> - Sydney, whose hobby is coming up with patches for Rowling's 
> gorgeous but rather buggy programming....

Being a lawyer, I thought that Karkaroff's testimony was more like a 
grand jury statement.  That is, it is closed to the public because 
the tribunal is gathering evidence.  Once the tribunal has gathered 
evidence, it would hold a trial, which would be public.  You don't 
want the evidence gathering stage to be open to the public for a 
number of reasons--one of which is that an innocent person could be 
slandered without a trial.  The Bagman hearing, however, was a 
trial.  The trial would be open to the public, because that's when 
you can clear your name and the public can judge the fairness of the 
hearing.  If I recall correctly, we only know that Rita Skeeter was 
at Bagman's hearing.

"fun n' games"