Vengeance on Snape?Re: Snape--Abusive?

[justcarol67]

No: HPFGUIDX 116527


Sigune wrote:
<snip> 
> > What keeps puzzling me - but I have little knowledge of the
workings of law and court - is that Snape is 'cleared'. The word
suggest to me that he is proved not guilty, whereas he clearly has
been a Death Eater. Does anybody know what kind of status spies have,
that is, are they 'cleared' of crimes committed because they made
'good' use of  their experiences in the end? Even so, I think a
verdict of 'not guilty' is a bit rich, but maybe that's just me.
> 
> 
> Carol responded:
> I think it means that charges were dismissed before the case went to
> trial. Sort of a plea bargaining, protected witness arrangement.
> (Someone please correct me if I'm interpreting it incorrectly.)
> 
> Certainly, the recent reference to Snape by some poster (I forget
who)as an "ex-con" is incorrect. He was never convicted and evidently
> never even charged. That would explain, in part, why his name did
not appear in the papers like those of Malfoy, Macnair, Nott, et al.,
who *were* tried and found not guilty by reason of Imperius.
> 
> Carol

Carol again, replying to her own post:
I noticed in passing that *Harry* is "cleared of all charges" in OoP.
(sorry I don't have the page reference but it might have been in the
career counseling chapter). Something similar must have happened with
Snape--only my sense of the matter is that fewer people were present.
It seems to have been very hush-hush. It's not that either Harry or
snape was found not guilty. It's that the charges were dropped--for
very different reasons.

Carol