Harry's arrogance /Evil Snape

[pippin_999]

No: HPFGUIDX 154292

> > Pippin:
> > If Snape is DDM, he is not the traitor, in which case all that 
stuff aboutDumbledore's weakness of seeing only good in people is 
simply  irrelevant -- and since Rowling has told us it isn't, the traitor 
must be someone else.
> 
> Alla:
> 
> Erm... Yes, IF he is DD!M he is not the traitor, but I thought it 
> was clear enough from my many posts on the subject if not from this 
> one that I don't believe that he IS the DD!M :)

Pippin:
Er, yes. I was responding to Carol's theory that Snape was loyal and
was forced to kill Dumbledore by circumstances beyond his control.

Your theory, if I may summarize, is that Snape was not loyal and
was forced to kill Dumbledore by circumstances which were beyond
his control, but wouldn't have been beyond his control if he'd been 
loyal. Is that right? 

The trouble with both these theories is that in neither one could
Dumbledore's death have been prevented if he hadn't trusted Snape
recklessly. I think that's self-evident in the case of Carol's theory. In
the case of your theory, the problem is that even if Dumbledore
suspected Snape and sent him away from the castle, he'd still 
have wound up dead, since  there'd be no one to cure him of the "no 
health drink." Depending on who won the battle of the stairs, 
either the DE's or Madame Pomfrey and Slughorn could only 
have watched helplessly as Dumbledore succumbed.

It might be said that Dumbledore recklessly trusted that Snape
would be able to cure him, but Dumbledore didn't know the
drink would be that dangerous when he drank it.

Dumbledore made it clear that he did not think it would be 
worth the risk of another hand to destroy another horcrux, so I
think he was sincere when he said that  the green
goo wouldn't be fatal immediately.  That's also borne out by the 
Inferi who attack only after all the goo had been drunk. Dumbledore 
had reason to think that Voldemort did not not want the thief to die 
-- not unless he had defeated all the other protections and was 
about to get away.

Unfortunately, RAB had no reason to preserve this feature of the
trap -- his note makes clear that he expected Voldemort to be the
next person to retrieve the locket. 

He'd have wanted Voldemort to live-- but only until he'd opened
the locket, realize who had swindled him, that his horcrux was
destroyed and uh oh, RAB would have had to remove the original
liquid to get at the locket so what was this stuff I just drank,
argh, argh argh. Unfortunately for RAB's plan but even more so for
Dumbledore, it was Dumbledore who drank the poison instead.
One must note that literary poisons have a long history of killing
people they weren't intended for. ;)

Now my Snape theory, since you asked, is that Snape was loyal to 
Dumbledore, faked the AK on the Tower and then had to leave
him to his fate due to circumstances beyond his control. Snape
is thus no more a murderer than a triage nurse or the fireman who
leaves the grandfather behind in order to save a teenager.

What put circumstances beyond Snape's control was not the vow,
which has enough holes in it to fill the Albert Hall,  but the 
entry of DE's into the castle. We might blame Draco for that, but
since he was acting under duress, should we not blame the agent
of that duress? AFAWK, Draco was serving willingly until sometime
after term began. Then someone delivered Voldemort's threats
against Draco and his family. The same person no doubt  
enchanted Rosmerta, assembled the DE's for the raiding party, 
perhaps even supplied Draco with Peruvian darkness powder.
(Do we really think Fred and George would sell Draco anything?)

Shouldn't we be wondering how these things happened and
who was responsible? Whoever delivered the threats to Draco
had to have access to Hogwarts, so it must have been someone
whom Dumbledore trusted -- recklessly as it turned out.

I do think it was Lupin, but in fairness Tonks and McGonagall
are also suspect. 

Pippin