Snape, A Murderer? (Was: Re: Is Wormtail an Occlumens or an open book?)

[justcarol67]

No: HPFGUIDX 95384

I (Carol) wrote:
<snip> I agree that PP is not an Occlumens but disagree that Snape  
is a possible murderer. LV, as I've argued elsewhere, seems to find  
uses for his DEs that suit their abilities, and he had murderers and 
Muggle-baiters aplenty without using Snape for that sort of dirty 
work.)>>
> 
Nora replied:
<<Why isn't Snape a possible murderer? It seems like all of the DEs 
in the Department of Mysteries were certainly potential murderers-- 
anyone who engages in dueling/fighting the enemy is. LV didn't see  
fit to spare someone like Lucius Malfoy from doing the dirty work 
there. Regulus Black tried to back out when he learned some of what  
he'd have to do...in other words, there's no reason to assume that  
killing was not something expected of *all* DEs. <snip>  Given LV's
attitudes towards people, I  seriously doubt he doesn't expect all of
them to do 'dirty work'. Same thing for use of the Unforgiveables--it
makes far more sense for all of the DEs to have used them at one time
than for some of them to have gotten off clean.>>
> 
Sigune responded:
<< This is a very interesting discussion. My first thought would be to 
agree with Carol's view, as she expressed it in other threads, that 
Snape cannot be a murderer <snip> because I cannot believe Dumbledore
to consciously hire a murderer as a teacher. That would be morally
totally unacceptable; and I don't believe in ESE!Dumbledore. He has 
hired a phoney; he has hired a werewolf; he has hired an impostor.
<snip> You can question some of these appointments, of course; but I
can't see any evil intentions or immorality behind them. However, for
a Headmaster to entrust the students in his charge to a murderer -
that would be downright irresponsible.
 
BUT. Snape is of course an Occlumens. Would he have told Dumbledore 
if he had killed people? If not, how could Dumbledore find out if he 
did?And there is Nora's point. Could anyone in Voldy's service
*refuse* to kill and live to tell it? I should think, with Carol, that
if Voldy were clever he'd use his Death Eaters to do what they are
best at. And maybe he does - Mulciber, for one, appears to be known
among his fellow DE's as an Imperius specialist. In Snape's case,
Voldy'd naturally have exploited his remarkable talent for making
potions. If you have a person under your command who is really good at
doing something others have less skill in, would you risk getting them
killed in a raid? I wouldn't. <snip>

I am not entirely sure if I am suggesting Snape would have pretended 
an inability at Unforgivables... I am wondering if he *could* have 
done so if he wanted... Or if there was any wriggling room at all if 
he objected to killing...

I don't think I can justify this with canon, but somehow I don't 
think Snape is a wizard of the Mugglebaiting/Mugglemurdering type. On 
the other hand, I *can* see him use an Unforgivable on a fellow 
wizard, just to test his strength against his adversary's. I do 
recall, though, that the one time we have seen him threaten to use 
the Killing Curse, against Sirius in the Shrieking Shack, despite his 
obvious hatred he needed a reason to cast it ("Give me a reason and 
I'll do it" - quoting from memory). Hm. That may be Dumbledore's 
influence, of course. And I wonder if he had done it could he claim 
it was self-defence against the mass-murderer Black? <snip>
 
NB: It has occurred to me that IF Snape's function among the DE's was
to make potions and/or poisons, they would no doubt be put to evil 
uses, which means that even if Snape did not administer them himself, 
he at least shares a responsibility in the harm that is done. <snip>

Carol responds:
For the record, I more or less agree with Sigune, having made some of
the same points myself in previous posts. I think that LV puts his DEs
to the uses that best suit their talents and his needs. Lucius likes
being leader and has no qualms about casting any Unforgiveable Curse.
He probably mastered them all quickly. Barty Jr., who hated his father
and wanted to oppose him with all his might, probably mastered the
Unforgiveables quickly, too. We also know that he was very bright and
powerful, like his father, able to partially resist the Imperius
Curse. That plus his loyalty to LV made him one very useful DE despite
his youth. It suited her love of inflicting pain--and that's what she
was used for.

Sigune wrote:
<<How about if a Death Eater isn't *capable* of performing an 
Unforgivable Curse? We know that magic is not just a question of
mumbling a word or two and waving a wand. Casting a spell correctly
involves serious training, combined with an inborn ability. Some
wizards are simply more talented than others; some have more potential
than others. So I wonder if there are spells some wizards simply never
get done *because they just can't*.>> 

Carol responds:
Exactly. That what happened with Regulus Black, IMO. As sirius pointed
out, he got in over his head. He wasn't motivated by hatred or
obsession like Barty Jr. and he probably couldn't have cast an
Unforgiveable Curse if his life depended on it, both because he wasn't
very powerful to begin with and because he wasn't motivated by hatred
or cruelty or cold indifference to human suffering. He failed. He was
expendable. He was eliminated.

As for the others--if Mulciber is an Imperius expert, why bother to
teach him Crucio or Avada Kedavra? Put him to the best use, forcing
others to do terrible things. Same with Bellatrix. Based on what we
see of her in the MoM, she was an eager disciple who wanted  to
impress her dear master with her prowess. She may have learned all the
Unforgiveables, but she preferred the Cruciatus Curse because she
loved inflicting pain, and that's what LV used her for. (Notice that
he did *not* send her to lead the raid. He needed someone who could
think clearly and organize the others, and he chose Lucius for that job.) 

And Snape? Again, LV would have put him to the best use--potion
making. As Sigune said, you don't risk the life of someone with such
rare and valuable skills by sending them out to bait Muggles or murder
enemies. Let someone who specializes in AK do that. (I'm not saying
that he could not have mastered the Unforgiveable Curses had he been
forced to do so. I just don't think he convinced LV that his talents
lay elsewhere.)

Also, it must have been DD who taught him Occlumency in the first
place, and I don't think Snape could have kept any secrets from him or
that DD would hire a murderer (as distinct from an auror like the real
Moody, who occasionally had to kill a DE in a duel). I think that
Snape *is* guilty of making potions (potions) that were put to
horrible uses, as well as some immortality potions for Voldie, but I
don't think he actually committed murder or cast an Unforgiveable
Curse. Had he done so, DD would not have hired him. (There is, of
course, a lot more going on with Snape, something like true repentance
and/or a very strong desire for vengeance on Voldemort.)

Let's put it this way. Given Snape's cunning, his mastery of potions,
 LV's apparent tendency to use his DEs where they will best serve his
needs, and DD's great skill as a Legilmens (who would know if Snape
was lying because it was probably he who taught Snape Occlumency in
the first place), I don't think we can just *assume* that Snape must
have cast an AK or other Unforgiveable Curse while he was in LV's
service. 

Unlike Regulus Black, young Snape was powerful enough and clever
enough to convince LV to put him to other uses--first potion-making
and then spying on DD at Hogwarts (of course, he was already working
for DD at that point and using his skills as an Occlumens to hide his
true loyalty from Voldie). To assume that he must have been sent out
by LV to Crucio or AK or Imperio people when LV had others at his
command who were experts in those fields is to underestimate both him
and LV, and to assume that DD would forgive an Unforgiveable Curse or
hire a murderer is, IMO, to underestimate DD.

Carol