Is Harry an idiot because he thinks Snape is guilty? Was: Why wizards are so i

[Deb]

No: HPFGUIDX 140621

 
>Deb wrote (snip) 
> They do NOT go blasting into the air.     
>   
> 
> Sherry responds:
> 
> I'm not convinced.  Whatever happened at Godric's Hollow, it blew 
up the
> house!  So what's so strange about Snape's curse blasting 
Dumbledore into
> the air?  And in the long run, whatever curse was used, be it AK or
> something else, the end result is still the same.  Dumbledore is 
dead at
> Snape's hand.  Harry witnessed it happen.

Deb replies:
  But it was a *failed* AK that blew up the house. One that 
rebounded off Harry and hit LV. We see in COS what happens when a 
memory charm backfires through Ron's damaged wand and takes out 
>all< of Lockhart's memory not just parts of it. And in GOF we see 
that the power of spells can be combined when wizards work 
together... as they did in subduing the dragons. Also see this in 
POA when the trio all blast Snape at once with "Expelliarimus" and 
it knocks him out cold when what that spell is supposed to do is 
expel what ever the other person is holding from their hand. And at 
the end of GOF we see what can happen when multiple spells are fired 
at an individual all at the same time... when Harry, Ron, Hermione, 
Fred, George blast Malfoy, Crabbe and Goyle with multiple spells at 
the same time 
(GOF page 730 Amer h.b. edition)
 "Interesting effect," said George looking down at Crabbe. "Who used 
the Furnunculus Curse?"
 "Me", said Harry.
 "Odd", said George lightly. "I used Jelly-Legs. Looks as though 
those two shouldn't be mixed. He seems to have sprouted little 
tentacles all over his face...."  plus all three were unconscious

 The way spells appear to work is that the person casting the spell 
has to form a specific intention, use the correct word(s) and say 
them correctly (don't forget Wizard Baruffio who ended up with a 
bison on his chest because he said "s" instead of "f")and wand 
movement, speak or think the spell with the appropriate amount of 
force to bring about the desired effect, and focus the intention and 
energy through a working wand. When one or more of these elements is 
not correct then the effects of the spell are distorted - either 
enhanced, diminished, or warped in some way. And I think this can 
happen when one deliberately changes the dynamics of a spell also. I 
think at GH (which Harry also witnessed by the way even though he 
was just a toddler he does remember pieces of it like the blinding 
flash of green light and LV's laugh and at times his mother's pleas) 
what happened was a combination of a failed/rebounded AK plus 
another spell cast by someone else who was there (Snape? or someone 
else I'm not sure).... a spell that should not have been mixed with 
the rebounded AK cuz it caused an explosion and may have been part 
of the effect that created Vapormort. See, IMO, LV loves an 
audience - he could have killed Harry several times over in the 
graveyard before all the DEs showed up but he wanted an audience to 
see his triumph over Harry. And at GH I would bet that he also 
wanted an audience when he finally took out the Potters and, from 
his POV, triumphed over what he knew of the prophecy. In the 
graveyard he speaks of "three dead in my service" when noting who is 
absent from the circle. Perhaps it is these three who were with him 
and who were blown to smithereens...      
 
> Deb:
> Perhaps what Harry is supposed to do is to THINK! (snip)

> Sherry now:
 (snip)  How can anyone seriously expect Harry not to believe what he
> believes?  I think the finest police officer, FBI agent or any 
other top
> notch law enforcement officer in the same circumstances would 
believe what
> they saw.  Snape said a curse, and Dumbledore is dead.  It's 
pretty simple
> really.  

Deb again:
 I don't disagree with you Sherry about what Harry had just gone 
through... but that is the whole point. If Harry is to find the 
truth and vanquish LV he has to be able to put aside his emotions 
and think clearly. Harry is capable of this... we see him do so on 
many occasions when he is facing LV, TR, dragons, merfolk, etc. This 
is the lesson that Snape, DD, and others have been trying to teach 
him... intense emotion clouds rational thought. And interfers with 
one's ability to think through situations, arrive at correct 
answers, and perform appropriate and effective magic. I think one 
reason Snape worked so hard at the end to deflect Harry's spells and 
prevent him from uttering an Unforgivable Curse is that he knew that 
in those moments Harry was fully capable of putting enough emotional 
force behind such a curse for it to work properly ... and if he did 
so, it would utterly destroy him. It would tear his soul, not just 
because he had killed someone, but also because the guilt and 
remorse of having done so would immobilize him and make him 
incapable of fighting LV (look at his reaction to the consequences 
of his uttering the Sectumsempre curse... and he hates Malfoy too).  
And Harry is the only one who can vanquish the Dark Lord. 

 And as to what a cop would make of that scene on the tower... well 
a rookie would probably react as Harry did ... but if a seasoned 
veteran were in Harry's place, I think he or she would be observing 
and comparing his observations with everything he knows about magic, 
about the people involved, about everything he or she has learned in 
a career ...  and I think such a veteran cop might just say "hummmm 
something does not add up here. Something about this does not ring 
true... all is not as it appears to be". And though Harry is just 
shy of 17, he certainly is more of a "seasoned veteran" in the fight 
against LV and the DEs than any of his peers and many of his friends 
who are older than he is. He has defied LV 4 or 5 times already and 
no one prior to him has done so more than three times (other than 
perhaps DD).         
> 
Sherry wrote
(snip)
>  if again, Harry is wrong, all wrong, poor, misguided, hapless 
stupid
> boy.  No, Sevvy wouldn't hurt a fly and never killed Dumbledore 
and someone
> like Hermione is going to lay it al out for Harry, and Harry is 
going to
> feel terrible.  Been there, done that.  I like my idea of a true 
murder, but
> then a true remorse and redemption much better.  Of course, as 
always, only
> JKR knows for sure.
 
Deb again:
  Yes there is going to have to be alot of explaining and some 
display of the real Snape plus evidence of his remorse for what he 
has done (and if he and DD had a UV between them I sure hope he has 
that in writing or saved as a Pensieve memory cuz I'm not inclined 
to just take his word for it) before I, for one, will think he has 
earned redemption for many, many crimes - not just being the agent 
of DD's death. And I hope JKR is up to the task of providing that 
cuz she sure has written herself and Snape into a very deep pit. But 
I do think that there is much much more to Snape than we currently 
know. And I am hoping that there is a clear and compelling rationale 
behind his actions. 

 Deb (djklaugh) if Sherlock Holmes had been a wizard might he have 
been an Auror? "It is an old maxim of mine that when you have 
excluded the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must 
be the truth." (Arthur Conan Doyle in "The Adventure of Beryl 
Coronet"); "You know my method. It is founded upon the observation 
of trifles" (ACD in The Boscombe Valley Mystery); "Circumstantial 
evidence is a very tricky thing. It may seem to point very straight 
to one thing, but if you shift your own point of view a little, you 
may find it pointing in an equally uncompromising manner to 
something entirely different" (ACD in Bosc op cit); "The world is 
full of obvious things which nobody by any chance ever observes." 
(ACD in The Hound of the Baskervilles); "I suppose that I am 
commuting a felony, but it is just possible that I am saving a 
soul." (ACD in The Adventure of the Blue Carbuncle)