Snape's the Rescuer - Really? WAS: Justice to Snape

[colebiancardi]

No: HPFGUIDX 170626

> mike wrote:
> And my original post was about time-turned H & H doing what Snape 
> did, to wit, gathering up Ron, Harry-1, Hermione-1, and Black to take 
> them up to the castle. Even if they couldn't conjure stretchers, they 
> could have used Mobilicorpus to take the 4 unconscious people to 
> safety. I'm saying Harry-2 and Hermione-2 could easily have done what 
> Snape did, just using different magic. IOW, I don't think Snape's 
> *saving* the children was the only way they could have been *saved*. 
> But, of course, Dumbledore told them not to be seen, so they had to 
> let Snape affect *his* rescue.
>  
> Like I said, Snape got credit for "saving" the kids, but we know the 
> whole story. It would have happened without him. But, he did do it, 
> so he does get the credit, I must accede to that truth.
> 

colebiancardi:

LOL!!  The ageless question: which came first, the chicken or the egg?
 If Snape hadn't saved the kids, they probably would not have survived
with a werewolf on the loose, time-turner or no.  If there is no H&H
version 1.0, there is no H&H version 2.0.

You can't go back into the past if you don't have the present(ie you
are dead)  So, the whole story is that Snape saved the children.  I
doubt it could have happened any other way.    And Snape does deserve
the credit for that.

colebiancardi