Snape a mole all along? WAS: Re: Draco, Harry & Norbert

[zgirnius]

No: HPFGUIDX 152842


> Lolita:
> 
> There is one problem, in my opinion. If the events went as you 
> described them, why on earth didn't DD obliviate Snape before 
> letting Aberforth kick him out of the pub? He could have immobilsed 
> him, put an anti-apparition spell on him (he put it on the DEs in 
> the Ministry in OotP, so we know that there is such a thing and 
that 
> DD knows how to do it) and wiped the prophecy out of his memory. So 
> why didn't he do it? Why did he let him escape with this crucial 
> piece of information?

zgirnius:
My take on this is that Dumbledore does not go around Obliviating 
random people. Snape was a Death Eater (allegedly) at the time he 
heard the prophecy. But we don't have canon that Dumbledore knew it 
at the time. It is possible Dumbledore had no reason to suspect him 
(or even, reasons not to). Arguably, one could Obliviate an innocent, 
yet nosy passerby given the stakes, but I can see Dumbledore deciding 
not to do so. 

> Lolita:
> 
> But of course he felt remorse! I think this one is also from RedHen:
> When he heard that his information led LV to James, how do you 
think 
> he felt, knowing that he had a lifedebt to James, and that he had 
> breached the contract, by being partly responsible for his death? I 
> think that the consequences of such an act are neither innocent nor 
> easily  - if ever - righted. 

zgirnius:
I was not denying he felt remorse. On the contrary, I believe he did, 
and it provided the final reason which led him to leave the Death 
Eaters and join the 'good side'. Whereas Red Hen (and the always DDM! 
theorists more generally) believe he was already on the 'good side', 
so that Dumbledore was lying to Harry when he expressed his belief 
that Snape's remorse was the reason he returned. 


Unless, of course, that interrupted sentence would have ended in some 
other way. I don't think Red Hen makes such a suggestion in her 
essay, though.