Did Snape "murder" Dumbledore?

[juli17 at aol.com]

No: HPFGUIDX 138024

After reading HBP and many, many posts, I am still convinced  that
we really do not know if Snape murdered Dumbledore. At the moment
we only know what Harry and the Death Eaters witnessed--and what
we readers witnessed through the words of the narrator. Which is...
 
A weak and ill Dumbledore pleaded with Severus Snape, first before
Snape even looked at him ("Severus..."). Once Snape was facing
him, the two maintained silent eye contact for several moments. 
Dumbledore pleaded again ("Severus...please..."), then Snape 
pointed his wand at DD and spoke the AK curse, with an expression 
of revulsion and hatred etched in the planes of his face. A jolt of 
green light shot from Snape's wand and hit Dumbledore square in
the chest. Dumbledore was blasted into the air, then fell slowly 
backward like a rag doll. After Harry confronted Snape, he found
Dumbledore's body, spread-eagled, his eyes closed, looking 
like he might be sleeping but for the strange angle of his arms
and legs. 
 
So, we know that Snape pointed his wand at DD, spoke the AK,
that green light shot out of his wand, that DD was propelled 
backward, and that he was dead by the time Harry eventually
reached him. That it is all as it appears--that Snape vilely 
murdered DD--is certainly one possibility. But there are others...
 
1. Simply because Snape spoke the AK does not mean that is
the spell he actually cast. We know there are nonverbal spells, 
and we have no definite canon prohibiting speaking one spell 
while actually casting another. So he may not have cast an
AK at all. 
 
2. While an Unforgivable spell is said to leave a stain on the soul,
we don't know for sure whether this is true of Snape, even if he
did cast (or attempt to cast) an AK. The Aurors were allowed to
cast Unforgivables in the last war when absolutely necessary,
and presumably these didn't irrevocably stain their souls if their
intent in casting the spell was not an evil one but served some
higher or necessary purpose (like self-defense). If Snape cast 
the AK at Dumbledore's request and/or as a sort of mercy killing
that also aided his crucial undercover role as a spy (which 
necessitated the spell be an Unforgivable rather than a lesser
spell), then would his soul still be stained?
 
And if he cast an AK, but it was an incomplete one because
he lacked the evil intent to kill Dumbledore, yet it was still enough
to kill Dumbledore in his weakened state (perhaps from the fall
itself rather than the AK), would his soul still be stained?
 
3. Murder is killing with malicious intent. If Snape killed  Dumbledore
knowing that he was already dying, with the intent being to end 
DD's suffering and grant Dumbledore's own wish to make his  death
meaningful in the war against Voldemort (and perhaps to keep 
Dumbledore from turning into an Inferi if that is a consequence  of 
his death by the potion), is that murder? Or is it mercy killing,  even
a sort of assisted suicide? (I realized assisted suicide is a touchy
subject, but again I predicate this on DD already being terminally
ill with little or no time left.)
 
4. If DD asked Snape to deliver the final killing blow, does this
mean the same thing as asking Snape to commit murder, i.e.,
to stain or split his soul? I don't think it has to mean that. If
it isn't murder, i.e., killing with malicious intent, but is some 
combination of mercy killing/releasing DD's soul before it can
become an Inferi, then it isn't actually murder, and DD is not
endangering Snape's soul. (And I agree that DD would not
ask Snape to do something that would endanger his soul).
 
For those who believe in ESE!Snape, if one of the above 
scenarios (or something similar that JKR has cleverly thought
of and I haven't) turns out to be true in Book 7, would this be
enough to accept a DumbledoresMan!Snape? 
 
Julie 
(who could--unhappily--accept an ESE!Snape *if* all the 
deliberate inconsistencies JKR threw into Snape's 
behavior in HBP were proved to serve an actual purpose
for his character and the story, rather than simply being 
there for no other reason but to maintain doubts  about his
actual allegiance) 
 
 
 


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]