Who killed Dumbledore?

[Bart Lidofsky]

No: HPFGUIDX 162901

>Dungrollin:
>This is an interesting one. 
>
>IMO it would (assuming DDM!Snape gets through book 7 without dying) 
>depend entirely on whether 
>
>a) there is any evidence that Dumbledore ordered Snape to kill him; 
>
>b) whether the decision to kill Dumbledore and place Superspy!Snape 
>in the DE camp and at Voldemort's right hand significantly improved 
>the chances of Voldemort being defeated; 
>
>and c) how much evidence there is to support the idea that Snape had 
>been working against Voldemort and that he didn't kill DD in order 
>to help the bad guys. 

Bart: 
It's been discussed before, but I'll bring it up again. We have seen all sorts of wounds healed in the WW. Even the poison that Art Weasley was hit with was curable. With Dumbledore's resources, it must be therefore at the very least considered that the reason why his hand could not be helaed was that it was already dead, and that the death was somehow blocked, might we even say "stoppered", at the end of the wound. We DO know that Dumbledore wanted Snape to do something that Snape did not want to do, and we don't know what. But it is a reasonable theory that Snape, much less than killing Dumbledore, was in fact all that was keeping him alive for the first part of HBP. 

Is it murder to kill a man who is already dead?

Bart