Why DD did not ask Snape to kill him. (extremely long)

[Zara]

No: HPFGUIDX 166122

> Dana:
> I even see a big flaw because Draco was ordered to kill LV and
> *if* Snape took the UV to protect DD, and he was planning to
> die, then where does that leave Draco? Because not finishing,
> his task, would get him killed. And LV letting him live is
> still a big question mark.

zgirnius:
Snape knew that Dumbledore would be willing to help Draco out by 
hiding him from the Dark Lord's wrath. If Snape's statements at 
Spinner's End are to be believed, he knew Draco's task before the two 
sisters ever showed up on his doorstep, and even had reason to 
believe "he wants me to do it in the end".

Even if Snape was bluffing, as some DDM! folks propose ("we all" are 
a diverse group, Dana!, there are *many* theories of the DDM! flavor 
about Snape) , I don't think it is a stretch for Snape to suppose 
that Dumbledore would try to help Draco in some way. And even if 
Snape is wrong, how would his taking the Vow make thinks *worse* for 
Draco? And, even if preventing the murder of Dumbledore *did* make 
things worse for Draco, surely it would still be the right thing to 
do?

Dana:
> Better yet I believe that it was Snape who provided the
> information for LV to decide to go after DD and this is why;
> 
> Pg 36 UK ed. paperback:
> 
> 'I am pleased to say, however, that Dumbledore is growing old.
> The duel with the Dark Lord shook him. He since sustained a
> serious injury because his reactions are slower then they once
> were.'
> 
> This is information that you never ever tell to your enemy
> because it puts holes in your defence system. 

zgirnius:
I am certain Snape reported the injury promptly, and in exactly the 
same terms he used to Bella. Dumbledore's black hand is a highly 
visible proof that something has happened which all the students and 
staff at Hogwarts, and tons of others, will see. Dumbledore is a 
public figure, after all. As a spy, Snape can never fail to report 
promptly something that is going to become public knowledge sooner or 
later. The story he (and I presume, Dumbledore) cooked up for Bella, 
Voldemort, and any other DE who might ask, has the virtue of hiding 
all that Snape knows. 

Even if Snape does not know about the Horcruxes, if he were to report 
in exact detail the precise symptoms of the curse he healed (a curse 
Voldmemort devised, presumably), and other circumstances such as the 
presence of a black ring on Dumbledore's hand, Voldemort would be on 
to the Horcrux hunt.

I can't prove that he didn't, in fact, report these details, any more 
than you can prove he did. What we *know* he did report is far less 
damaging to the Order than what he *could have* reported.

Dana:
> The big problem in all of your theories, that Snape will be
> able to help Harry from LV's side, is that Snape will not and
> never be able to change LV's plans.

zgirnius:
Please do try to be more precise in addressing your comments. Whose 
theories do you mean by "all of your theories"? My responses to your 
posts posit no such thing. Dumbledore chose to die, so that three 
others would live. Full stop. That this might have other benefits is 
nice, but not necessary.

That said, who says Snape's usefulness would be in changing 
Voldemort's plans? Sabotaging them through direct action, reporting 
them to others, or working to subvert Death Eaters (such as the 
Malfoys) are also options for DDM!Snape in Voldemort's camp. As is 
simply being there and taking whatever action seems necessary and 
opportune, if Harry and/or others end up in the vicinity of Voldemort 
and in need of help. 

This last is a popular idea even outside the DDM! camp. Neri's theory 
of LID! (Life-Indebted) Snape has Snape saving Harry at some point to 
avoid the nasty consequences Neri supposes befall persons who fail to 
honor a life-debt, as do theories that Snape is OFH! but will come to 
feel guilty about his murder of Dumbledore, or wants Voldemort dead 
for his own reasons and so will help Harry.

 Dana:
> This means if LV goes after Trelawney next, then there will be
> no one to stop him from doing so. 

zgirnius:
Snape could warn someone. And yes, I know nobody would trust *him*, 
but the Potterverse offers a wealth of possible ways he could do so 
anonymously. If he, as the murderer of Dumbledore and current star 
DE, is assigned this task, he would even have the option of sabotage 
through direct action. 

Dana:
>Don't you think this would be important for this plan to work?

zgirnius:
What plan? "We" don't all agree there was a plan.

Dana:
> Is that really so dangerous to his cover that besides DD someone
> else knows why Snape CAN be trusted. 

zgirnius:
I believe that Dumbledore did give Harry the true reason for Snape's 
return, his remorse. The question is, why did Dumbledore believe in 
it, when Harry and others find this reason laughable? A possible 
simple reason is that Dumbledore has known Snape from the age of 11, 
and based on this extensive knowledge is simply sure Snape is worthy 
of his trust. Why do you trust your friends? I know my reason for 
that would have to be either "Just because", or a long recitation of 
our past history together. That DD opted for "just because" ("I trust 
Severus Snape completely") instead of a long account of what he seesn 
as his reasons for trusting Snape is explained by his desire to spend 
the night getting a Horcrux, not having a long argument about Snape 
with Harry.