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

[justcarol67]

No: HPFGUIDX 95508

> Kneasy wrote:
> << DD wouldn't have any qualms about accepting an ex-DE killer on to 
> his side so long as he was convinced that he could trust Snape from 
> then on. And he states (and so has JKR) that he knows Snape's reasons 
> and believes that he can trust him. DD is a war leader. Deaths are 
> inevitable. Note that DD doesn't descend into paroxysms of grief when 
> deaths occur; a few sentences to the school after Cedric is murdered 
> and mind games with Harry after Sirius snuffs it. Moody is a long-
> time friend and he's a killer. Does DD look on him as a pariah? No. 
> He did what was necessary. If you fight a war you get your hands 
> dirty; to pretend that somehow it's possible to defeat Voldy and be 
> able to avoid inflicting casualties on the enemy is not credible. It 
> wasn't in the last Voldy war, why should it be different this time? 
> He has to win the war. Any other alternative is not acceptable. And 
> he will use whatever means are at his disposal that he thinks will 
> work.>>

Carol:
Deaths in war, like the deaths of criminals who resist being brought
to justice (e.g.,Wilkes and Rosier), are not the same as murder. The
difference between 9the real) Alastor Moody and the Snape you envision
is that Moody killed only when he had to (we don't know whether he
used Avada Kedavra or some other method) and he was trying to bring
Death Eaters to justice. Hiring someone like that as a teacher (at a
time when Karkaroff, who seems to have helped Antonin Dolohov Crucio a
number of innocent people, is going to be staying at Hogwarts for a
year) is very different from hiring a known murderer for a permanent
position--with no ex-auror to protect the students in or out of class. 

I absolutely agree that DD has good reason to trust Snape. (I wish I
knew what it was!) I also agree that Dumbledore has to accept the
inevitability of deaths in war (though he did at least drape the Great
Hall in black to honor Cedric Diggory and ask the students and staff
to honor him). But acceptance of death is not at all the same thing as
placing a known murderer in a position of trust for fourteen years.

Nor do we need to assume that because Snape was a DE, he was
*necessarily8 a murderer. Severus Snape in his late teens was a very
bright and talented young man. In addition to his skills with potions,
which probably was already evident at that time, he had presumably
(based on the Pensieve scene) scored very high on his DADA OWL (and,
by extension, the NEWT as well). He also knew a very large number of
curses (canon) that LV could have made use of without requiring Snape
to murder anyone. And why use Snape to Crucio people, either, when he
had specialists for that job (Bellatrix and her male followers, the
Lestrange brothers; Dolohov and his assistant, Karkaroff)? Why not put
Snape to uses that no other DE could be put to? Why not make the most
of his prodigious talents? That's what a dictator with any
intelligence would do, and Tom Riddle, at least, was known for his
high intelligence (whatever we may think of Voldie now).

I'm fully aware that there's no canon to indicate that Snape *didn't*
commit murder or perform an Unforgiveable, but there's no canon to
indicate that he *did.* Any assumption that he must have done so is
just that, an assumption.

And we *do* have canon to indicate that DD has very strong principles
which do not include the end justifying the means. He opposes the use
of Dementors as guards at Azkaban (GoF Pensieve scene) and opposes
them again as guards at Hogwarts because they are dangerous and
innately evil. McGonagall says in SS/PS chapter one that DD is too
"noble" to use certain spells (which I think we can assume include the
Unforgiveables). JKR says that DD is "the epitome of goodness." He
goes to great lengths to protect Harry and the students in general
from Sirius Black, whom he believes to be a murderer.

It simply does not make sense that such a man would hire Snape if he
believed (knew) that Snape had committed murder in the past,
repentance or no repentance. Yes, DD is using Snape to prepare the
students for the coming war. And, yes, absolutely, there is a bond of
trust between them. But given what we know of Dumbledore, it's more
likely that Snape prevented or tried to prevent a death than that he
committed murder. Had he murdered and repented, DD might have retained
him in his position as spy. But giving him a full set of classes
involving poisons and children as young as eleven? Making him the Head
of House for one-fourth of the students? Trusting him to make wolfbane
potion for a man he regarded as an enemy?

No matter how practical DD may be or how seemingly indifferent to the
deaths of unknown people in the unforeseeable future, the evidence
does not suggest that he's indifferent to the welfare of his students
now. Snape is a former DE. Trust or no trust, he could relapse. And if
he were to relapse into murder, Dumbledore would on some level be
responsible. IMO, that's a chance he would not and could not take.

Carol