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

[nrenka]

No: HPFGUIDX 128243

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "quigonginger" 
<quigonginger at y...> wrote:

<snip>

> If I was Snape's attorney, I'd say the statute of limitations had 
> expired on #1 and #2, and that there was insufficient evidence on 
> #3.  I'd go for a plea bargain on #4, pleading guilty to hurting 
> their ickle feelings and ask for 14 years teaching potions at a 
> minimum security educational facility, with credit for time served.
> Of course, that's American law, of which I know very little.

Statue of Limitations is something that feels very un-WW to me at 
least, given what little we've seen of the 'legal' system.  Oh, 
they're happy enough to let people off with the correct application 
of money and/or influence--which got both Lucius Malfoy *and* Severus 
Snape off.  But the WW is, judicially, a profoundly fickle place to 
say the least...

There are stains that don't come off, you know.  Absent the details 
that would mitigate participation (and I mean an actual level of 
knowledge, not "Dumbledore said he's clean!), having participated in 
the DEs to the level to have the Dark Mark is the sort of thing that 
I don't think one can ever escape.  I still think a good analogy to 
such is the SS (back, Godwin!  JKR made the comparison first, which 
means your Law applies not).

Number One and Two are still up in the air as to details, but could 
be either a strong or a weak argument.  Number Three hasn't been 
proven false, but it hasn't been *not* proven false yet either.  
Number Four is more a case for civil court, and has teeth in it 
depending on which legal system you use.  Still pretty morally 
reprehensible, the exercise of authority in that manner.  YMMV.

-Nora notes that people are getting rather exercised over something 
that made her giggle, and notes that the odds are very, very good 
that all presenters will be scrambling and that Hurricane Jo may rip 
the roof off of the courtroom