My HBP Review

[bluesqueak]

S
P
O
I
L
E
R

S
P
A
C
E
YOU KNOW, I JUST HAD TO DELETE THE FIRST VERSION OF THIS BECAUSE I 
FORGOT ALL ABOUT THE SPOILER SPACE

S
P
O
I
L
E
R
S
--- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "Jim Ferer" <jferer at y...> 
wrote:
> Penny:
> - doesn't the AK require a more negative intent to murder
> (rather than a "positive" intent for a mercy killing)?
> 
> 
> Pippin:
> Read carefully the description of Dumbledore's body. Does it sound
> like he died of AK to you?
> 
> We saw the AK leave Snape's wand, hit DD square in the chest, **and
> blow him off the Astronomy tower** onto the ground many feet 
below. I
> believe the Hogsmeade medical examiner, if there was one, would 
find a
> variety of post-mortem injuries. Finding none is what would be
> unbelievable. I've seen fall deaths. I think JKR wrote the 
description
> of the murder in a way designed, for once, to be unmistakable.

Uh, if she had DD dying of the fall, it probably isn't murder. 
Murder requires *intent*. 

If the AK itself didn't kill Dumbledore, Snape didn't intend to kill 
him enough. Remember Moody? You can point a wand at someone and say 
AK, but without the power, he wouldn't even get a nosebleed. 
Likewise Ballatrix tells Harry you have to *mean* the Unforgivables.

The AK appears to have blasted DD off the roof. That's odd in 
itself. Cedric just fell to the ground. Pippin's already detailed 
the post-mortem injuries, but I'm beginning to agree with her that 
this is a very odd AK, that doesn't agree in several respects with 
the ones we've seen before.

Anyways, if Snape *didn't* intend to kill Dumbledore, it's not 
murder in British law, even if he knocked DD off the roof and DD 
died from those injuries. It's what British law 
calls 'manslaughter'. If even that - it would depend why Snape did 
what he did.

Pip!Squeak
"Where do you think I would have been all these years, if I had not 
known how to act" - Severus Snape