Under the influence

[eloise_herisson]

Pippin:
> This is rather uncanny. I've been having these same thoughts myself
> offliist. Great minds...
> 
> I'm on travel and haven't got my canon handy. But didn't Dumbledore
> say that Voldemort would want to interrogate the drinker of the
> potion? 
> 
> What if it makes you reveal the thing you least want Voldemort to 
> know?

Eloise:
Actually, that chimes very well with what Saraquel suggested over on 
the other list (post I linked to) - she suggested that the potion 
contained Veritaserum amongst other things.

Pippin:
> I'm thinking that in order for Dumbledore to use Snape as a spy, he
> would have had to increase Snape's occlumency skills to the point
> where Snape could hide his remorse from Voldemort. That would 
> mean occlumency lessons, with Dumbledore  using all his 
considerable 
> legilimency skills to try  to force the truth out of Snape.

Eloise:
This assumes that his Occlumency *needed* boosting and that it wasn't 
already sufficient to block Dumbledore's legilimency. ;-) But I agree 
it's a likely scenario and it would go nicely with Dumbledore telling 
Harry that Snape was a "superb" Occlumens because it would be one of 
those little pats on the back that Dumbledore is fond of giving 
himself.

Of course, there's always the possibility that Voldemort taught Snape 
Legilimency for precisely the same reason before he sent him to 
Dumbledore (though that sounds far too sensible for the Evil Overlord 
we know and love). And whichever of them did it, it became a two 
edged sword. Dumbledore *had* to trust Snape because as Harry pointed 
out, he can hide the truth from him if he wishes. Unless there's 
something else going on that we don't know about.



Pippin: 
> That could be what DD is reliving. That would explain the pleas--
> and also that Harry thinks, when he hears Dumbledore pleading on the
> tower, that he's never heard Dumbledore plead before. He hasn't,
> because what he heard before was Dumbledore's recollection of Snape 
> pleading, first,  that he doesn't want to relive that memory again,
> then the memory itself, that he doesn't want the Potters killed, 
that
> he would rather die.

Eloise:
Exactly. I had suggested it was by means of a Boggart, but of course 
Legilimency would have the same result. As long as he wasn't able to 
resist it, of course and plant false memories.

Pippin:
> On a somewhat related thought, we've seen LV try to use Dumbledore 
as
> his executioner more than once. Consider young Snape, a gifted 
wizard,
> full of drive and intelligence, with a passion for the dark arts, 
who
> is growing out of his adolescent gawkiness into a man who can 
command
> the attention of a room just by walking into it -- could Voldemort
> have sent Snape to apply for the jinxed DADA job because he feared
> that Snape could become a rival Dark Lord?

Eloise:
Possibly.

Pippin:
> In that case, Voldemort wouldn't have seriously prepared Snape to
> resist Dumbledore any more than he did Draco, and the reason
> Dumbledore thought he had nothing to fear from Snape's occlumency
> skills is that he is the one who brought them to their present 
level.

Eloise:
Quite logical.

Pippin: 
> BTW, what *do* you think all those Christie books are doing on 
JKR's 
> shelves? Hercule Poirot (note his initials) would be perfectly
> satisfied with poison as the cause of DD's death.


Eloise:
Who me? Or the list in general?

On one level I don't think it actually matters *what* killed 
Dumbledore. The more interesting questions are 

*What did Snape *think* was happening (was he curable or incurable, 
how long would death take, how much suffering would it cause, was 
there any advantage to anyone involved, for good or bad in finishing 
him off quickly)? 

*What were his intentions and motives (to act on Dumbledore's 
wishes/orders or Voldemort's or his own)?

*What did he actually do (cast an effective, though somewhat abnormal 
AK, an ineffective AK or only something that looked like one)? 

BTW, I wonder at what point Harry will begin to question his own role 
in Dumbledore's death? Yes he acted on his promise. But he didn't 
*have* to make that promise in the first place (in absolute terms, 
that is; I know he had little choice in the matter, but it would only 
be human nature to say "If only I hadn't..." just as McGonagall did).

~Eloise
from miserable Kent.