Requiescat in Pace: Unforgivables

[colebiancardi]

No: HPFGUIDX 174660

 
>
> > colebiancardi:
> > 
> > yes, it WAS wrong for Snape to use the AK.  I still have not seen 
> any
> > resolution, via canon, that he actually used the AK on DD.  Remember
> > all the threads on Snape & the AK prior to DH's?  I tried to bring 
> it
> > up the other day, if anyone had found canon in DH's that it was a 
> true
> > AK that Snape used, and not a non-verbal spell masked as an AK.
> <SNIP>
> 
> 
> Alla:
> 
> Ok, we agree that it is wrong then :)
> 
> But on the second point, I think it is up to you ( hypotheticall you, 
> anybody who brings up that this is not AK) to prove that it was not, 
> no?
> 
> Canon says it was AK. I believe that it was AK. Unless there is an 
> evidence that **it was not one** of course. That's my take on things 
> anyways.
> 
 
colebiancardi:

well, canon states that Snape *said* Avada Kedavra.  But canon also
states that they've been learning about non-verbal spells all year long.  

Seems to me that is a great plot point that was never really used in
DH's, no?   So, if learning about non-verbals was important in HBP and
what we knew about UC's and the status of Snape's loyalities before
the wrap-up in DH's, it seems to me that one could conclude, knowing
that Snape was DDM!Snape, issued a non-verbal spell instead of an
Unforgivable Curse.  Have we ever seen Snape issue an Unforgivable
before in the books?  Even in DH's, he resorts to confounding instead
of Imperious.

Of course, my opinion pretty much goes to hell in a handbasket, as the
good guys *use* UC's in DH's.  

But, it just seems to me that the point of non-verbals was just tossed
away in the garbage, along with the idea of never using UC's, when
DH's came out.

The evidence that Snape may or may not have used a true AK in HBP
could go either way.  He may have said it, but that doesn't mean he
meant it.  And we don't see this memory at all in the Pensive.

IMHO

colebiancardi