A contradiction to consider

[abigaileire]

No: HPFGUIDX 135142

I am new to the group, so please forgive any faux pas I might make.

I have read the posts up until a week ago, still trying to catch up, 
and I haven't seen this mentioned:

Harry makes the observation that Dumbledore must be dead since he was 
freed from the immobulus curse at the time of the AK curse.  It is 
explained that a witch or wizard's spells are broken upon death.

OK

So, how come Draco, and more importantly Snape, fled off-grounds to 
apparate away from the school?  Wasn't it Dumbledore's spells which 
protected the school from apparations and disapparations?  We know 
Dumbledore had the power to at least change them temporarily, because 
we saw this twice in the chapters before the showdown (apparations 
class, and the broom flight of Harry and Dumbledore into the school 
just before the attack).  So, my logic tells me that one of three 
things have to be true:
-Snape forgot about spells breaking when a wizard dies (is this even 
likely?)
-JKR was forgetful about what she had previously told us was true (is 
this even possible?)
-Snape knew the spells were broken but chose to flee for other reasons
-the spells are still there in working order.

The last one seems to point to me that Dumbledore isn't dead.  But 
then, why is his portrait in the HM office?  

Did Snape flee the grounds because he knew he wouldn't be able to 
disapparate?  Or did he leave the grounds first to save time (sarcasm 
intended)?  Or did he leave *even though he could have disapparated* 
for a more dramatic effect or the like? 

Or, maybe Harry was freed from the immobulus curse non-verbally by a 
living Dumbledore.

I can't decide which I believe!


Abigailere.