Snape and Dumbledore on the Tower: A Defense of Snape

[dumbledore11214]

No: HPFGUIDX 165286

> > > Kemper responded earlier:
> > > We won't know until 7/21 whether or not Snape killed Dumbledore.
> >
> > Alla replied to me:
> >
> > Sorry, Kemper, but I am jumping in for a second just to disagree 
with
> > your wording. IMO we **do** know that Snape killed Dumbledore, 
because
> > he said AK and Dumbledore died.
> >
> > I know, I know it is a straightforward reading, but I just think 
that
> > is too much of switching the gears, so to speak
> >
> > ... It is of course possible that
> > Avada Kedavra is not really AK and poison did Dumbledore in, but 
that
> > is not what I read on the page.
> 
> Kemper now:
> 
> Hi Alla!  We know Snape said AK.  We know Dumbledore is dead.
> We do not know that Snape caused Dumbledore's death.
> Some of us /suspect/ that Snape killed Dumbledore based on the info 
on
> the page, and some of us /suspect/ that Snape made it appear as 
though
> he killed Dumbledore based on the info on the same page.
> 
> I think both our readings are straightforward and our arguments 
legitimate.

Alla:

Heee, legitimate - of course. Every argument based on canon is 
legitimate and believe me, I do realise that my reading can be 
completely wrong.

But as to whether whose reading is more straightforward, we are 
having difference of opinion here.

Let me put it this way and I am not being sarcastic at all. I 
remember one incident in canon when person was attacked with AK and 
did not die. And as we know ( I think) that was a real AK.

I do not remember **any** incidents in canon when person was attacked 
with **fake** AK. I can misremember of course.

Is it possible that it was **fake** AK? Sure. But sorry, I cannot 
agree that this is a straightforward reading anymore than I can agree 
that ESE!Lupin is a straightforward reading. Sorry.

JMO,

Alla.