Dumbledore does Lie-Part II, Snape Turned

[Mike]

No: HPFGUIDX 159901

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "hickengruendler" wrote:
>
> > Mike previously:
> >
> > Why doesn't Dumbledore hit Snape with an "Obliviate" and erase 
> > any memory of the prophesy from Snape?
> 
> Hickengruendler:
> 
> Because Snape simply disapparated? He might have been surprised  
> by Aberforth catching him, and desperatly trying to hear the rest  
> of the prophecy and to fight off Aberforth, did not do so at once, 
> so that Dumbledore and Trelawney could see him as well. But after 
> this he could have been disapparated any day. Or he simply ran 
> away, before Dumbledore could do anything, and apparated from  
> outside the pub. Sure, Dumbledore is strong, but he's not almighty.
> Bella managed to escape from his as well, so why not Snape?

Mike now:

Snape disapparating is not what happened, according to Dumbledore. 
Dumbledore told Harry he was "thrown from the building". If you take 
any other position than the one that Dumbledore used for his version 
of events, you have made my point for me, i.e. Dumbledore Lied to 
Harry. **That** is the entire basis of my position. If what *really* 
happened is in any way different from what Dumbledore *said* 
happened, ipso facto Dumbledore is lying. Then, we must assume that 
Dumbledore is lying to hide something.

As far as Bella; She deflected Dumbledore's spell as she was running 
out the door. Snape was collared by Aberforth, not in any position 
to defend himself or make his escape. Besides, don't make the 
mistake that just because Bella is a fanatic that she isn't also a 
powerful witch. I read her as both, the worst combination (or best 
if you are Voldemort).

Mike