Trial of Severus Snape - WAS Re: Harry IS Snape.

[M.Clifford]

No: HPFGUIDX 141327


eggplnt:
> I have never seen any evidence that Dumbledore wanted Snape to kill
> him nor have I read any credible reason why he would wish such a 
> thing. 

Valky:
Well to be honest, I am not absolutely convinced of it either. But I
am neither convinced by the facts in evidence that Snape even killed
Dumbledore, of all the things that Dumbledore could have died from in
HBP, the ring curse, the potion, Snape's weird looking AK, and a fall
from a high tower, it is the last two that seem the *least* likely to
have killed someone of Dumbledores calibre as a wizard. 

I can see how they appear to compound on Dumbledore until he is weak
enough to die from the final blow, sort of. I mean, yeah I can agree
he's weakened, but I disgree that in that weakened state he couldn't
choose to fight for his survival if he really deemed it the best
thing. Think of the examples we have: of Dumbledore alone under the
terible curse from the ring that nearly killed him, he fought it, he
was a fraction of an inch from death but he fought it, and survived.
Then there is the potion and the Inferi, again Dumbledore was nigh
paralysed by the effects of the potion, probably a sliver from death
again, and up he gets fighting, even taking the time to compliment
Voldemort on his design. All this time he is applying his will power
and fighting death with one more thing to do. When he gets to the
tower, again he's hauling himself up the wall, minding his manners,
and trying to save Draco Malfoy from mutilating his soul, he's got
plenty of willpower left. But he's thrown away his wand. 

Seriously, Harry's OWL examiner tells him Dumbledore could to the most
amazing things with a wand, and in OOtP we see it. And there on the
tower all we see is Dumbledore giving his wand up. Why? Why does
Dumbledore stop fighting for *his* life? How can we give Snape all the
credit for Dumbledore's death when Dumbledore has *in plain view*
_given_ it to him on a silver platter? If Dumbledore wanted to fight
back he had the ability left in him. He even tells Draco he knew that
the Tower was a trap, and yet, he walks into it, and never tries to
get out again. Finally Dumbledore *does* know there is an Unbreakable
Vow, he does know that Snape faces death if Draco dies, Harry told him
about it after Christmas, and Dumbledore answered to Harry that the
Unbreakable Vow was *not* news to him, and it was *not* important.

I admit JKR did an immaculate job of presenting us a long list of
Snapes motivations throughout the story, but I submit that we are also
given reason to dismiss every last one of them, especially in
Dumbledore's choices of actions leading up to his death. 

This might not exactly be evidence that Dumbledore wanted Snape to
kill him. But it suggests that Dumbledore wasn't planning to live
through the night, and therefore whatever Snape has to do with his
death is... incedental?
 
eggplant: 
> > DD is, what, 150 years old? or more? and
> > Draco is a child, and a child who was a
> > bees thingy from redemption to boot!
> 
> Draco may be a child but he is also a poor excuse for a human being,
> Dumbledore on the other hand is the greatest wizard of the age; and
> you need to do a lot more than not murder someone to get redemption
> after all the things Draco has done.

Valky:
Oh I agree there was a whole lot Draco needed to do next, but my point
there is that Draco was a hairs breadth from his first step to doing
it and I can't imagine Dumbledore forsaking that, the hope of a young
soul, to save his hide, even if he could (and I think he could have).

Dumbledore believes in making the right choice over the easy one, and
this would be a case of that right choice. Sure, it's a huge
sacrifice, but Dumbledore judging himself more important than Draco
soul and sentencing Draco to death for his crimes would be so wrong,
it would be self-righteous and self aggrandizing to a nauseating
degree, it, in short, would be something Voldemort would do. Not
Dumbledore.


 
> eggplant:
> > IMO, a Dumbledore that would allow Draco
> > to die in his place, wouldn't be Dumbledore
> > at all.
> 
> And besides, I don't understand how Dumbledore's death makes Draco 
> one bit safer.

Valky:
Carol and Colebiancardi have both given some pretty strong arguments
for this. They are far, IMO, from the whole truth about what happened
on the tower, and I don't for a second believe that Dumbledore died
*only* to save Draco's soul, but in the sense that the best hope for
Draco's, at least temporary, survival came down to Snape being able to
protect him I agree.


Valky