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

[festuco]

No: HPFGUIDX 144991

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "dumbledore11214"
<dumbledore11214 at y...> wrote:

> It is possible that without Snape giving that little piece of 
> information to Voldemort, Voldemort would never gone after Peter in 
> the first place. IMO anyway, so it is a big question in my mind who 
> is more at fault for Potters deaths. Sure, Peter told Voldemort the 
> place of their hiding, but without Snape opening his mouth, 
> Voldemort may not have become interested in them at all. IMO of 
> course.

Gerry:
If Voldemort did go after him. We have only Peter's word. In the first
book Harry is told that lots of wizards claimed the acted under
Imperio. Peter could have taken that option when everything went
wrong. Instead he fought Black, killed thirteen people, slipped away
through the sewer and let and his innocent best friend go to Azkaban
for twelve years. Sure fear can consume a person but one would expect
that in that amount of time he could have made up a good enough story
to explain his own betrayal and let his friend go free. Ofcourse there
would have been a risk that people would not believe him and he had to
go to Azkaban himself. But is it really this all-consuming fear that
let him forget all decency and frienship? Not being able to think and
feal anything but this fear for twelve years at a time. Or was there
not much decency there to start with? 

If Peter was so driven by fear I expect that fear would be a feature
of Scabbers. Yet in the first two books, he is a fat rat who is mainly
dozing. Do we see him consumed by fear? Yes, in the third book when
Black escapes. And boy, does he have a reason. Redemption fot Peter?
not without great feelings of remorse for all the suffering and deaths
he has caused.

And ofcourse when he was discovered he voluntarily went back to LV, so
I take his babbling about being forced in the Shrieking Shack with
lots and lots of salt. 

And now for a quick comparison with Snape: 
Lets say they have an equal share of the blame for the Potter's death
(I don't agree, I think Peter is far more responsible than Snape, but
this makes for easier counting)
Total number of deaths caused by Snape: 
By himself: Dumbledore
By giving information: Vance, Bones, the Potters, Black (for three of
them, we only have is word, if he is DDM, things could be different)
Total number of people he caused to rot in Azkaban: zero.

Total number of deaths through involvement of Snape: six

Now for Peter:
By himself: thirteen muggles, Cedric
By giving information: Berta Jorkins
By going to LV: Crouch Sr. 
Total number of people he caused to rot in Azkaban: one

Total number of deaths through involvement of Peter: 16, not caunting
all people who died after the ressurection of LV for which he is
directly responsible.

Gerry