Snape didn't kill DD with AK!! And here's the evidence

[Kris]

No: HPFGUIDX 138691

Lolita wrote:
 
> And as for the thery that Snape did not use AK to kill
Dumbledore... 
> What could possibly be gained, plotwise, by that? Kill him he did,
> and what does it matter what curse he used? If he is ever proven 
> to be not-completely-evil, it will most probably be because of some
> preconceived master plan between him and Dumbledore, and not 
> beacause of the fact 
> that, in killing Dumbledore, he did not use the AK curse. And 
> Dumbledore is definitely, but most definitely, truly dead
> (otherwise, all of JKR's comments on death being definite, no 
> spell being powerful 
> enough to resurrect the dead, etc. would be a load of... well, you 
> know. 


Kris here:  

The whole theory behind Snape not really using the AK is most
definately in explanation of a greater plan between Snape and
Dumbledore.  I agree that it really doesn't matter what spell was used
to kill DD, if in fact he was killed.  And yes, death is definately
final... as JKR makes clear.  The small caveat would be that Peter
Pettigrew was *dead*... at least to all who saw his death, as well as
to those who were told of his death.  So the clarification of what
effects (and inconsistencies) the AK had on Dumbledore's body is to
question if we are really seeing another "Pettigrew".