A Cold Equation (was Re: The Trial Of Severus Snape)

[M.Clifford]

No: HPFGUIDX 141419

Sherry:
> Sorry, but Snape firmly with Voldemort, Draco saved
> > from his own idiocy and all the rest, does not justify Dumbledore  
> > being killed.  I just can't express it strongly enough.  
> <snip>
> 
> Lupinlore:
> I'll have to solidly agree with Sherry, here.  If Snape did indeed 
> cast an AK that did indeed provide the most proximate cause of DD's 
> death, there is no way to forgive him or ameliorate his crime. 


Valky:
Sherry, I am sure would know that on this, I also agree. 
To utterly clarify my position, since I am going to be defending it, I
am of the mind that if Snape shot a calculated successful Avada Kedvra
 at Dumbledore in order to kill him, it can nought be justified by any
extenuating circumstance, not even triage (although Pippin's/Carols
triage proposition is as close to convincing as it gets). This is the
way I believe it works in JKR's world, a triage situation IMO would
not end this way in these books. I am confident that Dumbledore would
have means to survive that, I am with Alla, Sherry, eggplant,
Lupinlore camp there. 

OTOH, the precise cause of Dumbledore's death is not established
conclusively in the text. There *are* three (or four) possible causes
presented. From a purely objective stance two (or three) of them are
not the cause and one is. *And* none of the three most likely causes 
stand alone as perpetrated against Dumbledore without his enabling.
IOW, there is no objective evidence of a cold-blooded murder. Hence
any further investigation should not assume there was one.

Objectively, the evidence *does* present an assisted suicide, but a
profile of Dumbledore strikes that to the bottom of the list, where it
belongs. 
   

Lupinlore:  
> What he thought he was doing is irrelevant, and whether DD was dying 
> from something else at the time is irrelevant.

Valky:
Once you assume that a cold blooded murder has occurred, I agree these
things are irrelevant. However, I fail to see how it can be narrowed
down to murder before these things are considered, I request a
demonstration of how that is done objectively.

> Lupinlore:
> Once again, I'll have to say I've not seen one single shred of 
> evidence that indicates this is not, in fact, the case.  The effect 
> of Snape's spell is perfectly in keeping with the scope of AKs we 
> have seen (considering that Voldy used one that blew up a house), 

Valky:
The house blew up in the instance of a rebounded AK, I don't recall
the witness saying that the AK in the tower rebounded. And I
absolutely disagree that the witness testimony is in keeping with the
scope of known AK effects on living beings that do not rebound.

As it stands (I have investigated) I have so far counted five
*demonstrated* Avada Kedavra's performed on living breathing beings in
the the books. 

The Fox. Fell down dead.
The Spider. Instantaneously the spider rolled over onto its back,
unmarked, but unmistakably dead
Fawkes. Swallowed the Avada Kedvara and burst instantly into flames.
(the typical death of a Phoenix)
Cedric Diggory. Fell dead.
Frank Bryce. Crumpled, dead before he hit the floor.

This is FIVE cases, which must statistically count for *something*
with the skeptics (come on!) and in every one there is the very same
effect. Instant death in its most basic and unornamented sense.

Blasting, aerial spectaculars and midair suspension are *not* in
keeping with the scope of Avada Kedavra performed on a living being.

We don't even have enough evidence to say Snape killed Dumbledore lets
get that out in the open.

Valky