Reasonable Doubt - WAS Re: Harry IS Snape.

[M.Clifford]

No: HPFGUIDX 141369


Lupinlore wrote:
> If Snape did indeed kill Dumbledore, 
> and I have yet to see one single shred of evidence saying he did not, 

Valky:
:D Then I shall have to give you the basis for my reasonable doubt,
shan't I. 

I previously wrote that of the four major lethal quantities affecting
Dumbledore through HBP, ie Ring Curse, Locket Protections, Strange
looking Avada Kedavra, and fall from a Tower, it is the last two that
present the least likelihood of successfully kiling a wizard of
Dumbledore's calibre. 

The one that deserves the first scrutiny, naturally, is the Avada
Kedavra. It *is* the Killing Curse, hence it is the only one of the
last three factors unambiguously given as deadly in canon. And for
that reason, if Dumbledore had fallen, slumped, at the moment the
curse touched his body with a blank, empty expression in his staring
eyes, then it would be unequivocally decided that the Avada Kedavra
was the cause of death. As it stands we have no such assurances.
Dumbledore is thrown bodily from the tower and dies at some moment
after the curse touches his body, with a peaceful expression and
closed eyes. It is not *conclusively* Avada Kedavra that kills
Dumbledore, this much can be said without a doubt. And that doubt
gives reason to hypothesise alternative scenarios. To my mind there
are three:

1. ESE/OFH Snape incanted a deliberate and intentional AK, with not
enough magical power to kill Dumbledore immediately.
2. DDM Snape faked an Avada Kedavra. 
3. Torn ESE/OFH/DDM Snape cast a half-heartedly real AK, his emotional
hesitation rendering it ineffective.

In none of these scenarios, do I see doubtless evidence that the spell
cast from Snapes wand killed Dumbledore. 

So next to scrutinise is the fall from the tower. Dumbledore's phoenix
can carry him, hence if Dumbledore was alive as he fell from the
tower, he need not have hit the ground and died. There is also the
question of the innate magic that kicks in when a wizard falls from a
height (as per Neville being dropped out the window), and other such
canon suggesting that wizards have superior resilience to physical
injuries, making it even more likely that Dumbledore could survive a
great fall than can be first supposed. I draw the conclusion that
Dumbledore *may* have survived the fall, especially if he had made a
concious effort to save himself. Or it may just as well have killed
him as he was weak and possibly was rendered unconcious. In all, the
fall is more likely to have killed him, given the evidence, than the
Avada Kedavra, and yet there is still some reasonable doubt that it
did without his concious effort to prevent Fawkes from saving him.

Without a conclusive cause of death yet established by these two
quantities, I turn to the potion in the cave. Investigation reveals a
strong possibility that the potion was lethal and that it could be the
cause of Dumbledores death. It is no more conclusive than the AK or
the fall, but no less either. Dumbledore admits that he suspects the
potion would eventually kill the drinker and he appears to be fading
fast after drinking it. But for his own fighting spirit keeping him
alive temporarily, we see evidence that he would be dead before
reaching the Tower. Death by the effects of the potion is reasonably
assumed to be able to occur at any time between DD completing his
drinking of it, and the moment of impact with the ground below the
tower. And finally the cursed potion is comparable to the ring curse
Dumbledore tells us was capable of killing him earlier in the year
ranking it higher on the scale of lethal items than both the AK and
the fall from the tower. In all, it is no less likely to be the cause
of death than the AK or the fall from the tower, hence reasonable
doubt exists that Snape killed Dumbledore.

Valky