Harry IS Snape.

[Jen Reese]

No: HPFGUIDX 141286

Eggplant:
> I agree that my viewpoint has not been proven beyond the shadow of a
> doubt, but in my opinion it has been proven beyond a reasonable 
doubt.
> If I were on a jury I would not hesitate for one second to find Snape
> guilty of first degree murder. I mean, if somebody else was about to
> throw Dumbledore off that tower and Snape had prevented it nearly
> everybody would say that was very strong evidence indeed that Snape
> was basically a good guy, but the rules of evidence work both ways.

Jen: Speaking of trials, I read a snippet about the Accio conference 
trial against Snape. Apparently in English law (maybe US too?) there 
only had to be a 20% chance Dumbledore was dying from the cave potion 
and beyond the help of human aid for Snape to be found not-guilty of 
murder from casting the AK. Since you can't kill a man twice <g>, the 
defense only had to prove doubt that any human (magical) intervention 
would have saved Dumbledore at that point.

When Snape looked at Dumbledore, surely his potions and healing 
expertise told him what shape DD was in. Unfortunately, WE don't get 
to know what he saw, darn the bad luck. So either he cast an AK at a 
already dying man, or at a man whom he alone could probably save and 
chose not to. That seems to be the real question here.

Jen, certain a legal professional could explain this more accurately.