Peter's basic nature v Snape basic nature/ Which one is worse? Pure speculat

[Miles]

No: HPFGUIDX 144973

> Juli:
>  And Peter's not really the  cold
> child killer who Avada Kedavra'd poor Cedric (that spell you have
> to *mean* to perform, which Peter performed with little or no
> emotion)?

dumbledore11214 wrote:
> Indeed. You have to mean Avada to perform it succesfully. You agree
> that it applies to all characters, including Snape, right? :-)

Miles:
I don't know if Julie means it. But I keep insisting that there is no canon
proof for this.
We heard Bellatrix who said this. Besides Bellatrix is far from being a
trustful witness, she told it when Harry tried to cast "Crucio". And Crucio
is very much different from Avada Kedavra, the idea of it is to induce pain,
nothing more. And to really "want" to torture someone cannot be any good, in
no situation, whereas to really want to kill someone may be "good" under
certain circumstances.
Even if Bellatrix is right, if killing Dumbledore is part of the plan,
DDM!Snape could "want" to kill Dumbledore, and this would proof nothing.

Miles