Accidental Harrycrux with a Bloodsucking Snake (long)

[pippin_999]

No: HPFGUIDX 155259

> Neri:
> Maybe, maybe not. It's an assumption anyway. But what I still fail to 
> understand is how is Snape any better morally if he "just" blasted a 
> helpless man of the highest tower in Hogwarts and left him to die a 
> long and painful death, running away when he was the only person who 
> still had a chance to save him. 
> 
Pippin:
It's an assumption that Snape had a chance to save him. Dumbledore
never says he wants Snape because Snape could save him. It's not
an assumption that Dumbledore had something very important to 
ask of Snape, but we don't know what it was.
 
> Neri:
> If AK indeed never blasts the victim, then the DEs on the tower would 
> know that (who'd know it better than somebody who uses AK on people 
> all the time?). So they'd know that Snape's green light on the tower 
> wasn't really an AK. 

Pippin:
Most wizards haven't an ounce of logic. I doubt those four had a 
nanogram between them.

Carol (thanks!) has given an exhaustive catalog of green light effects.
Snape needed only to say the words "Avada Kedavra" out loud with
no intent, then immediately and nonverbally do another spell which 
produced the green light and propelled Dumbledore from the tower.

As Hermione says, the great advantage of nonverbals is that no
one can tell what spell you are about to use.

Neri:
> If Dumbledore landed softly, then why is he described as "broken" 
> with arms and legs spread wide in unnatural angles?

Pippin:
Convulsions are one of the symptoms of severe poisoning and can
be strong enough to break bones. But see below.

> Neri:
> I still don't understand how Dumbledore arrested his own fall without 
> his wand.

Pippin:
With your permission, I'll assume Dumbledore is *not* a flying
Animagus, because that would make it too easy. <g> But you don't
need a wand to call  your Elf (HBP ch 19) Dobby can do a hover charm 
(CoS ch 2), and he is proud to keep Dumbledore's secrets (GoF ch 21). 

He could  have stayed with Dumbledore and arranged the body if 
necessary. That would mean there is someone to tell Harry the tale 
when the time comes, which would be handy for JKR.


> 
> Neri:
> Then why did he leave it on the ground for anybody to pick up?

Pippin:
Notes aren't Voldemort's style. If  Dumbledore saw there was
a note inside the locket, he'd  know Voldemort wasn't the one who
had set the trap. Not good news for DD, since his deduction that
the green goo would not be lethal was based on his knowledge of
Voldemort's psychology. 

DD left the locket and note for *Harry* to find. No one who wasn't 
looking for the locket would be likely to notice it in the dark. Harry 
was the only person who knew it was there.


> Neri:
> Harry is already convinced that Snape killed Dumbledore, so it won't 
> be much of a shoe drop that Snape took a UV to do it.
> 
> I agree that JKR still has to explain Snape's motives in taking the 
> UV, but she doesn't have to explain its mechanism, unless it's 
> relevant to Snape's motive. If it's not relevant then her explanation 
> so far would be sufficient. 
> 

Pippin:

Harry is right now convinced that Snape is evil. However, as JKR
says, if that assumption is not questionable there's not much
point in Book Seven.  Harry is going to have to rethink somewhere,
and knowledge of the third clause is going to be a heavy weight on
the scales.

It's not the mechanism of the vow that needs to be considered, IMO,
it's  the logic. As Mike points out there is no time constraint on 
Draco's task. Since Snape's task is dependent on Draco's, it has 
no time constraint either, except the one implied by Narcissa's 
concern that Draco and his family not suffer for his failure. If
that's not going to happen, Snape need not fear the vow.

Pippin