Snape's the Rescuer - Really?/Justice to Snape

[lanval1015]

No: HPFGUIDX 170715

 
> 
> Pippin:
> Why would he be in pain once Madam Pomfrey had fixed his
> broken leg, and why wouldn't she bring him around with
> (r)ennervate? Ron took stunners one after another in GoF with
> no ill effects. 
> 

Lanval:
I meant that he was injured and in pain, and perhaps feeling weak, 
*before* he got hit by Pettigrew's spell, so the effect may have 
been worse than if he'd been feeling fine.

Pippin:
> This is a different spell, one that Know-it-all Hermione
> doesn't recognize:
> ---
> "What did he do to him?" Hermione whispered. Ron's eyes
> were only half-closed, his mouth hung open; he was
> definitely alive, they could hear him breathing, but he
> didn't seem to recognize them.
> ---
> 
> OTOH, Krum, whom Dumbledore diagnosed as Stunned, was 
> unconscious and his eyes were closed. 
> 

Lanval:
I still think it was a Stunner, and I think eyes closed or half open 
may just be a reaction different for each victim, but you make a 
good point about Hermione being puzzled by the spell. 

> 
> Pippin:
> A spell designed for use on humans may or may not have the
> same effects on a cat-kneazle mix. As for no ill effects, that's
> a guess -- though I guess it proves JKR really isn't much of 
> an animal lover. 
> 
> Hermione, who is supposed to adore her cat,  never even 
> wonders if Crookshanks is okay. Oops.
> 

Lanval:
I was thinking the same thing, after reading it again yesterday! As 
a Crookshanks fan, I hereby voice my protest. :)

I'll agree with you that it may have been a spell unknown to us and 
Hermione. However, I still don't see proof that Ron's life was in 
danger. No way Madam Pomfrey would have let him walk out of the 
Hospital Wing the next day then. I think her 'grimness' has to do 
with the fact that she believes the spell to have been cast by 
Sirius Black, which in her opinion would likely make it more heinous 
than had it come from anyone else. 



> > Lanval:
> > But Sirius neither had a wand, nor could he move, being bound. 
Do we 
> > know of any spells that are nonverbal, wandless AND require no 
hand 
> > movement?
> 
> Pippin:
> Dumbledore says that Snape's story is plausible, and that means 
> Sirius could have put the confundus curse on all three kids 
> without a wand. Plus, he'd managed to escape from Azkaban 
> and that was supposed to be impossible, so who knew what 
> he could do?
> 


Lanval:

DD says that Snape's tale is believable as a whole, but people would 
hardly fish for details like what wand Black was using, or whether 
Black is capable of nonverbally casting a Confundus charm. The story 
that Snape caught Black works with or without the Confundus charm.

Besides, I was talking about unconscious, bound Sirius on the 
stretcher. I see no evidence that Snape ever believes the kids to 
*be* Confunded, and thus can't really accept this argument as 
support for Snape fearing Black's nonverbal/wandless magical ability 
when he stretchers him off. It also makes the point about Sirius 
Confunding the kids without a wand moot.

To me it's still about keeping Sirius quiet.



Pippin:
> However, I thank you for your question, because it made me
> realize that Tom Riddle got himself and two children down
> a very steep cliff with no wand and no ropes -- and that
> has *very* interesting implications for Dumbledore's fall 
> from the tower. :)
> 
Lanval:
Well, do enlighten us! :) 


> > Lanval:
> > 
> > Well, Pippin, you lost me here,as surely you knew you would. :) 
> > Since I don't believe for a second that Snape is acting, I can't 
> > discuss that possibility.
> 
> Pippin:
> Er,  you did say Snape was lying his butt off or at least spinning
> a fine fantastic yarn.  The only question is whether he was acting
> to get some glory, or acting the part of a glory seeker. But
> acting he surely was. :)
> 
Lanval:
Yes, he was lying to Fudge, or at least embellishing, about what 
happened in the Shack and at the lake. But that's not *acting*, is 
it? His glory-seeking, his wanting the kids punished, wanting 
Black dead and Lupin dead or in Azkaban -- those intentions were 
real and heartfelt IMO, as was his rage; it was the events meant to 
convince Fudge that he lied about.




> Lanval:
> > As to Snape not blaming the kids -- why mention them in the 
first 
> > place? Fudge assumed the "nasty cut" to be caused by Sirius, and 
> > Snape corrects him, saying it was the kids. Why? Sounds like a 
good 
> > way and a perfect time to bring up the Confunded theory --which 
not 
> > only glosses over the embarrassing fact that Snape was overcome 
by 
> > three third years, but it would also support that the kids 
really 
> > *were* Confunded. Attacking a teacher!
> 
> Pippin:
> The Shrieking Shack is not part of Hogwarts.
>  A violation of the  Reasonable Restriction for Underage Wizardry
> would constitute grounds for expulsion, whether Snape was
> attacked or not. As the Ministry might already have evidence that 
> three expelliarmus  charms were cast simultaneously, they had 
better 
> be accounted for.

Lanval:
Do you think the MoM bothers keeping track of spells cast out of 
Hogwarts boundaries during the school year? I get the impression 
that Hogsmeade weekends involve all sorts of magic being flung about 
outside of school grounds. I don't recall ever reading anything 
about any restrictions applying there. And what about the Hogwarts 
Express? 

But to get back to the point -- it was Snape's choice to bring up 
the kids. He could have simply agreed to Fudge's suggestion that it 
was Black's work, perhaps earned a few more points with Fudge for 
suffering a bloody injury in the course of catching Black.

Pippin:
> 
> As far as embarrassment goes, according to his story, Snape let
> himself be attacked  by three students when he knew were being 
> controlled by a dark wizard.  Shouldn't have said he'd 
> caught on at once, should he? :)
> 
Lanval:
Ah, but he didn't say they were being controlled by a Dark Wizard, 
did he? He said they were Confunded, confused, befuddled. Which 
isn't the same as Imperio'd. 

The way I see it, Snape has several options here.

1. He says nothing about the kids and accepts Fudge's suggestion 
that it was Black who caused the injury, because being overcome by 
three third years would be embarrassing for Snape, Dueling Master.

He might thus look more heroic to Fudge -- but he still has to take 
into consideration that three underage wizards's testimony *might* 
influence Fudge's opinion. Same reason why he gags Sirius IMO. He 
can't take any chances. His remark about hoping that DD will not 
cause problems would support that as well.


2. He tells the truth, hoping the kids get expelled. No added 
heroism, plus some embarrassment, but the joyful possibility of 
perhaps seeing the last of them.

3. He tells the truth, but adds the lie that the kids were 
Confunded. It may still not cut out the embarrassment factor 
entirely, and he probably won't get them expelled that way, but the 
kids being Confunded will weigh heavily in his favor when it comes 
to contradicting their story. 

Plus, he can work out some extra punishment for them by stressing 
their rule breaking and trying to go after Black.

He chooses 3.

Really, to me Snape's actions, be it in the Shack when he screams at 
Hermione, or in the Hospital Wing, strongly suggest Snape realizing 
that there *is* a case to be made for Sirius, that there *is* 
reasonable doubt concerning his guilt -- and Snape cannot let that 
happen.