[HPforGrownups] Re: Harry IS Snape.

[Sherry Gomes]

No: HPFGUIDX 141288

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.



Sherry now:

I don't think that is the law in the US, otherwise Jack--can't spell his
last name, the so called doctor who practices physician assisted
suicide--would not have been put on trial and gone to prison for his
actions.  And personally, I find that kind of scary, because anyone who
could determine the situation in the right percentage could get away with
murder.  My hair raises with fear over that one.  For me, it all still comes
down to the fact that Snape killed Dumbledore.  I don't care why or how;
what curse it was or wasn't.  Unless Dumbledore is secretly alive and it was
all an elaborate hoax, nothing will excuse Snape to me.  

Sherry