Snape's Remorse

[eloise_herisson]

> Pippin:
> "Judge" Hall,   a real life lawyer, instructed the Accio jury that 
if
> they believed that Dumbledore had died as a result of the Avada
> Kedavra curse, either directly or by being blasted off the tower,
> they must vote to convict. If they believed that there was a
> reasonable chance that he had died of poisoning, then they must 
> vote to acquit.  The judge said if you thought it was  80/20 
> AK/poisoning, that was enough for reasonable doubt. Snape got 
> off.
>

The specific charge of which he was acquitted:

>>1. That he did with malice aforethought bring about the unlawful 
killing of Albus Dumbledore within the realm, namely at Hogwarts 
School of Witchcraft and Wizardry by the use of the Killing Curse, 
alternatively by causing the said Albus Dumbledore to fall from the 
Astronomy Tower, having previously attacked the said Albus Dumbledore 
with the intent of causing by magical means death or grievous bodily 
harm.. <<

He was not charged with *attempted* murder of which, even if it *was* 
the green goo that killed DD, he was guilty, assuming that was a real 
AK (which I know a lot of you don't) or a spell designed to 
precipitate his fall. In British law (if it were relevant) he would 
be guilty even if a) acting on DD's orders or b) acting from mercy.

"having previously attacked the said Albus Dumbledore with the intent 
of causing by magical means death or grievous bodily harm.."

is added as a sub-clause, although it is a crime in its own right of 
which he apprently wasn't tried. In a RL court, I think the options 
might have been left open to bring in guilty charges on a range of 
different counts. In any case, the law rests upon technicalities and 
available evidence; it is not a reliable guide to moral guilt or 
innocence.

(I'm using this as a starting point for some ramblings, having been 
away for a couple of weeks and trying to catch up)

I think I shall be rather disappointed if it wasn't a real AK. I 
certainly don't believe that the death was faked. Anticipated, in 
some way arranged (either with or without Snape's collusion) yes, but 
faked, no. In the various discussion that are going on, it just seems 
to me that it's leaving JKR with far too much complicated explanation 
to fit into the next book. I'm sorry, but I can't see it in practical 
terms. 

I don't see the point of the death being faked. We know that in the 
right circumstances a death can provide powerful magical protection. 
JKR has also said outright what many of us have said all along, that 
Harry's story requires that he completes his journey alone. I am sure 
DD will be present in the next book, *but not alive*. As I noted 
before, Dumbledore makes provision that against all precedent he will 
be buried at Hogwarts. OK, perhaps that's evidence for those of you 
who think he's still alive and having air pumped into that 
sarcophagus of his, but either way *he hasn't left Hogwarts*. 
BTW, if this is some plot involving DoLD, doesn't he need an 
accomplice? Wasn't the only likely one in a position where he really 
couldn't manage things post "mortem"? To reveal that he had another 
right hand man (or woman) again seems too much.

I know the effects of the apparent AK are anomalous. I'm not so 
convinced of Jo's consistency to let this worry me overmuch in the 
context of an image she was evidently intent on using - that of the 
Lightning Struck Tower, which requires the fall of a figure from its 
heights (well, the fall of two figures - that's an inconsistency in 
itself). I almost wonder if it was the intensity of the anger which 
Snape felt when casting the curse that led to DD being blasted off 
the ground like that. How many times has an AK been cast with intent 
at someone the caster did not *want* to kill (and whichever side 
Snape is on, I don't believe he wanted to cast that curse)? Assuming 
for now it was an AK, it was an AK cast under circumstances we've 
never seen before in canon.

~Eloise