Failed or Faked AK to kill DD (Was: DD Not Dead)

[justcarol67]

No: HPFGUIDX 148467

Gryffindor Chaser wrote:
> I've read other people's opinions on whether Snape said a nonverbal 
> spell while doing the AK curse on DD. So, collaborating what others
> have said, and what I have read, I think that yes, Snape used the 
> AK curse, but since he didn't mean it, it still produced a green 
> flash, but only knocked DD off his feet, in the air and over the 
> ledge. In this way, it is possible, as when Harry used the 
> Unforgivable curse against Bellatrix in OotP, that the curse still
> works, but not to its fullest extent.
<snip the part about turning into a phoenix>

Carol responds:
While it could be a weak AK, Snape's skill with nonverbal spells leads
me to believe that a nonverbal spell disguised as an AK makes more
sense to me. Snape *needed* Dumbledore to go over the wall so he could
get Draco, Harry (he would have known Harry was there because of the
second broom) and the DEs off the tower, and an AK wouldn't do that.
It would have killed DD instantly and he would simply have fallen
backward as Cedric did, allowing Fenrir Greyback to savage his body
and the unfrozen Harry to rush forward to fight the DEs. Having DD
fall from the tower would give him time to close his eyes (AK victims
have open eyes) and prepare for death, either from the fall or the
poison. There's also the little time lag--Harry is not instantly
released from the freezing spell. He is still frozen as he watches DD
rise into the air, float limply like a rag doll for a few seconds (has
Snape added something to slow the fall?), and then disappear. Not your
usual AK, this.

Note, too, that there was *no* blinding flash (the flash from
Wormtail's AK was so bright that Harry could see it *through closed
eyes* and no rushing sound. Snape could have chosen some other spell,
such as Impedimenta (we haven't been told what color the light from an
Impedimenta is--could it be green?) that would send DD over the wall.
He spoke the words "Avada Kedavra" but did not "roar" them like
Crouch!Moody when he killed the spider or "scream them into the night"
like Wormtail murdering Cedric. If he didn't *mean* them and did mean
the nonverbal spell, surely the nonverbal spell would have been the
more powerful. (I have a feeling that if a fully qualified wizard like
Snape is talking about Avada Kedavra with another wizard in
conversation and happens to have his wand in his hand when he speaks
the words, the wand isn't going to accidentally go off and kill the
other wizard.) If you don't mean a powerful curse that requires
intention, nothing is going to happen. 

But Snape had to intend something that would allow Dumbledore to die
and prevent the UV from kicking in. I suggest that what he meant or
intended was the Impedimenta or other nonverbal spell. Disguising it
as an AK made him look like Voldemort's man to the DEs, Draco, and
Harry, serving Dumbledore's purpose and allowing him to die
peacefully, looking neither surprised nor terrified nor angry but with
the same "wise old face" Harry has always known and the eyes closed as
if he were asleep. This image of the sleeping Dumbledore resurfaces
when we see DD's portrait, with the adjective "peaceful" added.
Significant? I think so. But I don't think his death is faked with a
phoenix or the Draught of Living Death or any such contrived solution,
or Snape would have died for breaking the UV. (The UV wouldn't care
whether DD died from a spell or the poison or a fall as long as he's
dead.) There's also that little trickle of blood coming from his mouth
which Pippin thinks indicates internal bleeding, and which seems
unlikely to result from either an AK or a fall.

Why does it matter whether Snape used a real AK or not? Because a
failed or faked AK combined with a nonverbal curse would show that he
killed DD against his will because he had no choice, and perhaps
because DD wanted him to ("Severus, please"). It would also be a
choice not to use the weapon of the Death Eaters, even though only he
and Dumbledore would know that he had made that choice. It does not
exonerate him, but it makes him a tragic figure trapped by his own
past sins, mistakes, and manipulations into killing a man he did not
want to kill and *could not* kill using an AK. It also makes Harry an
unwilling party in Dumbledore's death, which would not have happened
if DD had not been force-fed the poison on his own orders. Here again,
the hero (Harry) and the anti-hero (Snape) are in similar positions
that the hero has yet to recognize and understand.

One more little thing. As Harry is running past the Order members,
just before Fenrir Greyback attacks him, the big blond Death Eater is
hit by an Impedimenta, which acts remarkably like the supposed AK that
knocks DD from the tower except that there is no rampart for him to
fall over, so he merely slides back down the wall.

Carol, examining the puzzle pieces and trying to fit them together in
a way that makes sense without violating canon or deviating from the
Snape of the other five books, who for all his faults appears to be
Dumbledore's man