X-post: *When* did Dumbledore die?

[pippin_999]

> > Eloise:
> > 
> > Your theory undoubtedly makes sense, but I don't want JKR to provide 
> > that kind of get-out for Snape. Obviously I hope there will be one, 
> > but one that involves mitigation for his actually having killed 
> > Dumbledore, rather than one that makes me feel that I've been cheated.

Nora:
> While I can see various get-outs for Snape from an actual killing (but 
> it's not my preferred option, but as if that matters in the long run), 
> I agree with the fundamental objection.  As ingenious as Pippin's 
> explanation is, I want to ask: why?  Why is it so important that 
> Dumbledore have not died from Snape's AK?  Is all this explanation 
> necessary to keep him clean and pristine--what purpose does this serve 
> in the story?
> 
Pippin:
Because the real villain is ESE!Lupin. <veg> I admit, innocent Snape doesn't
work so well without guilty Lupin, but with guilty Lupin it works very
well indeed.

Snape is the Wrong Man, like Hagrid,  Morfin, Hokey and Sirius.

ESE!Lupin has way more BANG and pathos and intensity than any 
flavor of Murderer!Snape, plus it gives Harry a chance to show 
whether he really has the Right Stuff and surpass Dumbledore,
to overturn the lie of the golden fountain by being willing to  recognize 
evil where one wants to see only good.

The blood is far too prominently placed to be an unintentional red 
herring. And  lots of major clues have looked like
window-dressing at first: Quirrell's turban, Riddle's middle name,
Scabbers's missing toe, stolen boomslang skin and the vanishing
cabinet to mention just a few.

Pippin