Accio 2005 press release: new Guest Speaker and Trial of Snape

[justcarol67]

No: HPFGUIDX 128185

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Carol Thoma <justcarol67 at y...>
wrote:
> --- Ali <Ali at z...> wrote:
> <snip> 

> > 1. That the accused did, feloniously, treasonously
> > and with malice aforethought, combine with others to
> support the most bloody, abhominable and beastly cause
> of the notorious, prescribed and avowed traitor Thomas
> Marvolo Riddle, sometime called Lord Voldemort;
> > 
> > 2. That the accused did, feloniously, treasonously
> > and with malice aforethought, voluntarily accept
> membership within a prescribed and illegal
> organisation, vulgarly termed "the Death Eaters";
> > 
> > 3. That the accused, feloniously, treasonously and
> > with malice aforethought, continues as a member in
> said illegal organisation
> > 
> > 4. That the accused has on divers occasions and
> > under the guise of lawful chastisement committed
> assault and battery on minors in respect of whom he
> was in loco parentis, such assault and battery being
> occasioned by divers magical and physical means, and
> resulting in perceptible physical and psychological
> harm to the said minors.
> 
> Carol responds:
> Shouldn't that be "proscribed," not "prescribed," in
> item 2?
> 
> BTW, sounds like a rigged trial, with the verdict
> determined in advance. If Snape doesn't get off on
> items 3 and 4, it's definitely a kangaroo court.
> (Sounds like an accurate reflection of the corrupt
> justice system in the WW.) I'll check out the site,
> but it sounds as if pro-Snape or neutral/objective
> input is a waste of time.
> 
> Carol, who sometimes copyedits for Prometheus Books
> but unfortunately wasn't assigned the Kern book
> (assuming that he doesn't share the anti-Snape
> viewpoint so evident in the so-called trial)



Carol again:
To respond to my own accidental post (I thought I was responding to
Ali!) because everyone else has snipped the four charges (and yes, I
know it's all in fun, but I'm responding seriously , anyway):

I'm not a lawyer, but I would think that the very wording of the first
charge would get Snape off on a technicality. "Abominable" and
"beastly" are emotionally charged words that have no place in a court
of law. Also, to my knowledge, membership in the Death Eaters was not
"treasonous." I'm not even sure that the organization itself was
illegal, though its activities undoubtedly were. More important, it's
an open question whether the young Snape knew what the organization
was about, and as of now we have insufficient evidence to indicate
that he did. And as Betsy indicated, he's already been cleared of all
charges relating to being a Death Eater. I don't know about Britain,
much less the judicially corrupt WW, but in the U.S. at least, you
can't be tried for the same crime twice. All of which pretty much
disposes of charges 1 and 2.

Charge number 3 is unprovable at present. If I read GoF correctly, and
I realize that other readings are possible, he was not present at the
graveyard scene and Voldemort believes (or believed at that time) that
Snape had "left him forever." In any case, *if* he "continues as a
member of that organization," it's part of his cover as a spy for
Dumbledore. And if charges 1 and 2 are thrown out, wouldn't 3 be
thrown out with them? Again, you can't be tried for the same crime twice.

Which leaves charge number 4 and Alla's definition of assault, which
may or may not correspond with the legal definition. (Assault by that
definition certainly seems to be permissible at Hogwarts given the
behavior of Fake!Moody, Umbridge, Filch, and others, not to mention
the students mentioned by other posters.) That aside, he is not guilty
of *battery.* Unlike Fake!Moody and Umbridge, he has never (to our
knowledge) used a spell on a student. Nor has he ever struck a
student. He threw Harry *away* from him when he was furious with Harry
for violating his privacy. He could have done Harry serious bodily
harm, but instead he ordered him out of his office. Yes, Harry thought
that the exploding jar of cockroaches was thrown at him, but it didn't
strike him and it could have exploded through accidental magic along
the lines of Harry's accidental vengeance against Dudley and Aunt
Marge. While Snape may or may not be guilty of *psychological* abuse,
there's no evidence of lasting harm to the students (even Neville's
boggart has probably changed by now), and in any case, that's not what
he's charged with.

So, in the absence of sufficient evidence to prove this charge, he
would have to be found innocent--or the charge would have to be
dropped as before.

Carol, who can't attend Accio because it's at Reading University in
the UK and she's stuck in Tucson but hopes that the verdict will be
determined fairly and reasonably despite evidence to the contrary in
the wording of the charges