Accidental Harrycrux with a Bloodsucking Snake (long)

[spookedook]

No: HPFGUIDX 155167

Pippin:
> > My alternative explanation, in one line:
> > Dumbledore died of the poison shortly before Harry found him.
<snip>
> > The only assumption required is that Snape didn't kill him.
> > Whether that's reasonable or not depends on your point of view.

Neri:
> We're not talking here "reasonable" in the sense of Snape's
> morality, but in the sense of the magical mechanics involved. Are
> you saying that Snape used an AK that was just strong enough to
> produce a jet of green light, blast Dumbledore several meters in
> the air, but still not kill him and not even knock him out? Sounds
> like a one big assumption to me, and I'm not familiar with any
> canon that AK can do such a thing.

Pippin:
> > It is not an assumption that an AK can be ineffective or that
> > wizards can survive falls from a considerable height, as we have
> > canon for both those instances.

Neri:
> You do here awful lots of deducing from some very vague canon to a
> very specific case. <snip>


Sorry to butt in but I just noticed something that may add to your
debate. There IS reason to think that the unforgivable curse could
have failed or have been of low power (low enough to be survived).
1st, impostor Moody said to the DADA class that they could all get
their wands out and perform the curse and he doubted he'd even get a
nose bleed. 2nd, when Harry tried to perform the Cruciatus curse on
Bellatrix in OoP after Sirius died, she told him that you have to mean it.

Is it possible Snape did not mean to kill Dumbledore so the curse
did not work, however was enough to fulfil his vow????

spookedook