I personally don't think DD knew as much as he was pretending to, for the exact reason that he didn't do anything! Either he was so arrogant that he discounted Malfoy as a threat, or he didn't really know. Since Snape obviously did not know it was Malfoy that sent the wine and the necklace, I tend to think DD may have had a mixture of both!

Emeline is a huge factor. As QQS said, Bella did not contradict Snape, which makes it almost certain that Snape claiming credit for that death was valid, but I was more affected by the idea that DD could come up with a plan so bad it involved leaving Harry alone with Snape and a bunch of Death Eaters that had just killed him.

It is inconceivable to me that he would put Harry in that position.

I think DD would have risked, and given, both his own and Snape's life to protect Harry, so I do not believe he was begging Snape to kill him on the tower and since Snape did, it could only mean he was doing something DD did NOT want.

Of course, I have often commented that JKR can't really deal with plots that well. Every book has plot holes big enough to fly a pregnant hippogriff through, but this was just too big to believe. No amount of speculating seems to be able to account for Snape's actions as well as the theory he was bad from the start. Snape's confession at the start was never discredited at any point in the book, and that sealed it for me. Every other time, JKR has shown how we were given a wrong impression, but this time she kept it true.

As for redemption, I believe if Darth Vader could do it, anyone can, but this is not really a forum for discussing that aspect of Snape.

So, time for another summary of both sides?

Wow. I just went back and read all the posts to build a summary. I think this has been a very imprehensive (and comprehensive) discussion with many impressive ideas presented on both sides; it's too big to summarise easily.

Sorry, bajab, but I've seen Louise switch sides so often on this one that I fail to be convinced that she's joined your side for good. Besides, she'd be joining a losing battle.

People seem to have put to much stock in the similarities between Star Wars and Harry Potter--specifically, the parallel between Snape and Darth Vader. Here's the problem, when Vader killed Obi-wan (or whatever it was that actually happened there--still confused about that), everyone knew he was evil and that he would try to kill his former mentor if he had the chance. The betrayal occured long ago--Vader wasn't able to kill Obi-wan by abusing Obi-wan's trust. From the beginning we knew Vader was evil and no one would trust him to do the right thing.

Snape on the other hand had Dumbledore's complete trust. DD trusted him so much that he was the one person he wanted Harry to get when they got back to Hogwarts during a moment of extreme peril. Not McGonagall, not Slughorn, not Hagrid, Flitwick, Trelawney, Madame Pomfrey, but Snape. If Snape's murder of Dumbledore was an act of betrayal, he's on an entirely different plane than Darth Vader. Vader could be redeemed just as Ebeneezer Scrooge was. He was an evil, evil man who finally came to his senses. When we first met Vader, we never knew him as anything but evil, so we are nothing but pleased when we watch him toss the emperor over the edge.

Snape, on the other hand, would be more like Judas. Even when Judas went and hanged himself, it's harder to feel sorry for him than to feel like he met an appropriate end. Redemption just doesn't seem possible for someone who was trusted so completely who uses that trust to kill the one man who claimed complete trust in him when no one else would.

Now, think about things from Snape's perspective. We all saw a glimpse Snape's time at Hogwarts. He was a loner. He was teased. He had every right to develop a pretty cynical view of the world.

Enter Dumbledore. The headmaster knew Snape had become a DE, but something convinced him that Snape had changed his ways, so Dumbledore begins to trust him. He places Snape in charge of teaching the children who seem to be the most important thing in the world to Dumbledore. Outside Voldemort's camp, people's feelings towards Snape ranged from loathing and hatred to cautious and tenuous acceptance, but nothing more. Even within Voldemort's camp we know that he must not have felt much acceptance, else he wouldn't have left them in the first place--he did, after all, begin to part ways with Voldemort before the dark lord's fall.

Now people seem to think that Snape would kill the one person who had complete faith in him? For what? For Voldemort? We've all seen clearly that Voldemort only cares about himself. Will Voldemort trust Snape like Dumbledore did? Snape knows him too well to believe that. Voldemort doesn't trust anyone.

This is a very interesting point, but it's most interesting to me because it seems to be speaking for Snape's defense. Why would Dumbledore believe Snape would betray him by killing him? Dumbledore trusted Snape completely. If anything, Dumbledore should have been relieved when Snape walked in. Why would he be begging Snape not to kill him? There's two strikes against that. One is that Dumbledore didn't fear death. The other is what I just mentioned--he wouldn't have thought that Snape was coming there to kill him.

So now, why would Dumbledore have come up with a plan that would leave Harry in a room with a bunch of Death Eaters and the man who just killed Dumbledore? Because he trusts the man who just killed Dumbledore--it was part of his plan. In the turmoil and peril surrounding the incident, placing Harry in Snape's hands would be the safest possible place for Harry.

We're shown that this is true when Harry duelled with Snape. Snape protected Harry from the other DEs when they put the cruciatus curse on him. He only parried Harry's many attacks--he didn't even try to disarm him. Why would Snape leave Harry with his wand? It would have required a mere flick of his wrist, and he wouldn't have been disobeying Voldemort's orders (as he had already done by killing Dumbledore instead of making Draco do it). It also would have provided greater security for the him and the DEs as they made their escape, but yet he left Harry armed (though psychologically defeated). The reason? Snape didn't want to leave Harry defenseless. As has been pointed out many times, Snape was even giving Harry advice on how to duel better in the future. Snape knows that Harry is the only one with power to defeat Voldemort, so why give him advice that will make him more dangerous?

There are certainly theories that explain the events in HBP better than the theory that he was bad from the start. Having Snape be evil from the start puts Dumbledore begging for his life on the tower, and that is inconsistent with canon. We have every indication from JKR that Dumbledore is supposed to be though of as wise (though fallible), Dumbledore has said that to the well-organized mind death is but the next great adventure, and the core of what makes Voldemort evil, according to JKR, is his fear of death and susbsequent desire for immortality. There's nothing in canon that suggests Dumbledore would plead for his own life, and there are many things that say he wouldn't.

If we were truly expected to believe that Dumbledore's trust in Snape was misplaced, the reason for Dumbledore's trust would have already been revealed so that it could be discredited. But, like the Potters' occupation and Dumbledore's boggart, that information has been conveniently withheld because it would reveal too much.

My final point I'd like to reiterate, the last two books are more like two parts of one larger book. In the other books we have been led from the beginning to believe that Snape was evil, and it wasn't until the very end that we discover that we were wrong about all the actions that we thought were evidence of Snape being evil. We haven't seen the twist yet because we haven't reached the end of this two-part book. It's only natural for us to believe, as we did in all the other books, that Snape is evil, but when all the pieces have fallen and all the cards are on the table, Snape will be exonerated once again.

But he did say, in that direct quote, that he suspected him all along. It makes sense that he trusted Snape to watch this particular avenue, never thinking for a second that his trust was misplaced. If Snape didn't know that Malfoy sent the necklace initially, he certainly did later and should have been prepared for the poisoned mead. Evidently he wasn't, which is why Dumbledore was so angry with him. If Snape was good, then why would he have argued with Dumbledore? Why wouldn't he have just apologised, promised to try harder, explained about the Vow? But he didn't do any of those things and sadly, I'm forced to only one conclusion about that. I don't want to believe it, really I don't...but I find the facts slipping together a little more easily when viewed through the Snape-is-evil lens, whereas they tend to have to be jammed together a bit more from the Snape-is-good viewpoint.

No, definitely not. I think that's something that all sides can agree on. Which leaves us with the question of what was Dumbledore pleading for? For Snape not to give in to his darker side? For him to help Dumbledore fight off the DE's and finally show his hand as being good? Or for Snape to finish some agreed plan that had been made between them before hand? Who knows...I know what I'd like to think, but I guess we should really face the facts, shouldn't we?

And that's precisely why I threw the book across in the room in a rather over-the-top display of frustration and anger the first time I read it. Because there was nothing throughout the whole book, not one single, tiny scrap of evidence to contradict anything that Snape said to Bella and Narcissa. That's why, for so long, I believed Snape to be guilty. Of course, further reading and chats with everyone here got me thinking again, but I can't really argue with my own initial reaction which was exactly like yours, bajab. The only thing that was really bothering me is that Dumbledore trusted him - but when JKR has said in interviews that he made "emotional mistakes" and paints him as being rather weak and doddery in HBP, it does seem to indicate that perhaps Dumbledore made the biggest mistake of his life in trusting Snape.

As I've said before, if this is the case, then I have no idea where she's going with this series. She's not even being true to the characters. If Snape really is evil, then Dumbledore is a stupid, foolish man - and all that intelligence of his doesn't count for diddly-squat when he allows his heart (for whatever daft reason) to rule his head. I just don't see how anyone can label Dumbledore a "great man" after a mistake of this magnitude. He's an idiot - there's just no other way of looking at it. And it's so heart-breakingly sad.

Ditto. HP just isn't what I thought it was. I'm sure I'll still look back at the films and enjoy them, but I doubt I'll ever read the books again. I'd rather move totally into the world of fanfic and ignore the canon altogether if this is the route JKR is taking. Quite simply, I hate it. I hate it from stupid, shallow Ginny to the stupid, shallow ships to the shallow "I've been bullied so I'm going to grow up to bully others" Snape to the idiocy of this "great" wizard who trusts a known criminal to look after kids that he supposedly thinks so much of to this arrogant little turnip of a "hero" who was right all along so *sticks two fingers up* to all those who thought he was wrong.

In short, the whole series sucks.

Exactly, mate. My perception - and memories - of this series will all be coloured by the outcome of this particular arc.

That's just the thing though - I'm not so sure that there are hidden messages anymore. Or if there are, then they're daft ones. Messages that bullied kids turn into bullies themselves, messages that first impressions are always right, messages that arrogance is a good quality to have, messages that you should never give a bad person a second chance. I don't think JKR would intentionally send out such bad "vibes"...but that is what she is doing unintentionally if Snape is evil. Which leads to the only logical conclusion that there is no message. It's just a book about a kid who's a wizard.

Oh, I don't know, Sam. I started off in the Snape-is-evil camp, but I was swayed not only because I happen to adore Snape's character (though I'm beginning to think what I actually adore is the idea of Snape as seen in fics and personified in Alan Rickman) but because, despite the blow over the ships, I thought the series had a deeper meaning. I *wanted* to be swayed, which made the shift so much easier. Going back to my original thoughts isn't what I want to believe, but there are just so many good points made by the prosecution that just can't really be argued with. Maybe that was JKR's intention - to make it seem that obvious that it can't possibly be true. But she is obvious - the ships proved that. I know they were a sideline and not really important, but the point is that she doesn't hide things that deeply. The Snape-is-good arguments tend to be based on suppositions and coloured perceptions of certain events - I freely admit to that. The Snape-is-evil arguments tend to be based more on literal interpretations - which, experience has taught, tends to be more JKR's style.

I think what we're supposed to see in reading that is that Snape's betrayal is thus all the more horrific. That Dumbledore trusted him, and he betrayed him. I think we're meant to feel sorry for Dumbledore and great hatred towards Snape. I'm sure that's what JKR was shooting for - but she missed, for me anyway. Dumbledore had people's lives in his hands, and he risked them all on a personal, and as it turns out, rather arrogant belief that he was right and no one else could possibly know the situation as well as he did. I don't feel sorry for him. If this is the case, then he's an idiotic fool who deserved every inch of what happened to him and he certainly doesn't deserve to be revered the way he has been in death.

He certainly does. But it twisted him. He didn't get better after those experiences - they made him hard, cold and cruel. A perfect Slytherin and a perfect Death Eater. It's probably why he's such a good Occlumens - he probably learned years ago to shut off his feelings and channel them into anger and hatred instead. Voldemort offered him a chance not only to get back at all these people who'd hurt him, but also power - something he had clearly always wanted. Power and recognition. It's true, what the prosecution have been saying - what does Snape have to gain by being good? Staying out of Azkaban, yes - but that's not looking so likely anymore, is it? Now Dumbledore's gone. Voldemort offers him everything he's ever wanted - things we know for a fact he wanted. My point in a previous post that he was good because it was the right thing to do is admittedly very weak by comparison and there is no evidence to back it up whatsoever.

To stay alive, because he'd made the vow. He doesn't want to die. Or, perhaps more to the point, he's not prepared to die for Dumbledore.

I'm not so sure about that. Malfoy has been his friend for a very long time. Draco admires and respects him. Harry has never respected him. Neither has anyone else. Narcissa also seems to respect him. Respect and veneration is what he has always wanted - his chasing the Order of Merlin proves that. He's not getting it from the Order - he is getting it from the DE's.

That's a very good point. But I think the reason has already been revealed - that Snape "spun him a tale of deepest remorse"...Dumbledore echoed that when he told Harry. If that's the only reason DD had to trust him, then it's a pathetic one. Perhaps the act of murder is all the discrediting that needs to take place.

Even all this aside - even if we do end up with another Vadar, it doesn't nagate Dumbledore's stupidity in trusting him in the first place. Nor does it make up for the act of betrayal or the cold-blooded murder of Dumbledore and Emmeline. That's two people's blood he has on his hands. Is saving one life supposed to make up for that?

*sigh*

It's a very sad day....

Sorry for quoting so much, but I found it very interesting. You obviously saw Star Wars in the order it was made, but think about how people new to the series would watch it. To them, Vader started good. Find one and ask them if they still felt happy when Vader proved the Emperor couldn't fly. I bet they felt just as happy as you did, and maybe more so because they wanted Vader to be good again (I sort of wanted him to die horribly).

But aside from that, we have never seen Snape as 'good'. He was presented from the first page he was mentioned as a mean, nasty, git who picked on Harry and other children. We were all made to suspect him of being evil, so much so that even DD's explainations were not enough to quell Harry (or the reader's) bad feelings towards him.

At no point has Snape ever done aything nice. One single solitary act of kindness would have been enough to show he was not all bad, but it never happened, not once. Even Filch showed a kinder side to his nature through the love of his cat, but Snape was never anything less than condescending.

He done things that he was told to do (with apparent reluctance in most cases), and things that had logical ulterior motives, but never one definate, clear act of unselfishness.

As stated previously, the prosecution presents the logical conclusion that Snape was the best qualified to deal with DD's problem. Nobody else had his mix of Potions and Dark Arts expertise.

A penny pinching miser and the murderer of millions. A nasty boss and a person who brought a civilization to it's knees through betrayal and fear. Sorry, but I just can't see Luke accepting a christmas ham and bonus pay to forgive his father. Judas thought Jesus would rise up to defend himself, throw off the Roman and Jew dictators, and thus show the world his true power. He killed himself because he could not stand the guilt, a very different scenario.
Snape's similarity to Vader is simply based on the expectation that he will turn back to good after becoming evil.

You mis-interpreted my comment. I am saying that it is an incredible defence to present, one that is so unlikely it completely sinks the DD suicide plan plot (to me). I can't believe JKR would have her most protective character allow himself to be murdered in front of Harry, and then let him be left alone with those that murdered him, knowing what effect it would have on his temper. It really would be the worst plan in history.

I think it more likely that Snape didn't bother because his opinion of Harry is so low it wasn't worth the effort. Note how that changed when Harry done something that actualy did hurt Snape (called him a coward).

As to the shallowness of JKR's writing, I don't see it as a flaw!

I immensly enjoyed the first book because it was fun! It did not take itself too seriously and told a great tale with all the elements of a classic fairy tale. As the series had progressed, people have been expecting the books to become more 'serious', just because the characters were growing up. This has made all subsequent books not as enjoyable (for me).

I was not disappointed with the H/G ship (I was happy for him), because it was a classic plot hinted at from the very first time we saw Ginny, but when he took the Spider-man option with her in HBP, I felt let down because it was just so 'serious' and melodramatic!

If JKR was to return to the fairy-tale style and storyline of the first book, I would not be unhappy.

Part of this story line could very easily involve a most satisfying downfall of one of the the hero's most hated adverseries - Severus Snape - and I would find it in no way affects the moral of the story, because Harry has never trusted Snape.

This is an important thing to me. If Harry had put his faith into Snape and been betrayed, or even completely accepted DD's assertiions that Snape was trustworthy, the story would suck, but because Harry has always believed Snape to be a git, keepng him bad just reinforces Harry as the hero who was right even though others didn't believe in him. He had the courage to stick to his convictions and should triumph because of that courage.

It may take away from the supposed greatness of Dumbledore, and lower Harry's hero worship of him (which was pretty much unfounded in the first book), but that already happened when Siruis died. Harry has kept his faith in DD, but can accept DD was only human and made mistakes, it is very mature of him. If Snape does (or even tries to) redeem himself, it would still be in keeping with the 'moral' of Harry's growing up.

Go back and read the first book again and don't look for deeper meanings or future plot threads - it is a great book, even if it is 'shallow' and full of plot holes.

As stated, we've all basically agreed that he wasn't actually pleading for his life. . .but what if he was pleading for Snape to take Harry under his wing: Protect and teach him. (Yes, I know this is "out there", you naysayers!) Then you have all the reason in the world for the anger, hatred, and utter revulsion we see in Snape's response. Just a thought, most likely not true. . .but it's fun to consider.

I mainly think this is because the book is mainly in harry's point-of-view. There really shouldn't be anything to contradict his confession, or the Death Eaters would have seen right through it. Snape's actions at the end would not have been as dramatic or shocking (as it was intended), and Harry would have less cause to hate Snape . . .making any sort of transformation muted and possibly over-looked.

Wait a minute. . .I have to go back and check who said this. Hmmm. . .it was Louise!! Enjoy an HP movie? You? And also, weren't you the one just the other day scared that I was switching sides?? Oh, how quickly we turn our colors!! Come back to the good side, er, the defense!

Another reason why I think I'll still be okay with Snape if he turns out all-bad . . . he's even managed to convince a large majority of readers that he's been good throughout the entire series! I just love that. He's either fooled a lot of us, or fooled a lot of others. Either way, I think it's been well written. I'm still firmly in the "good Snape" camp, though.

I do see where you all are coming from though, with the books losing their appeal if this were to be the case. They would lose a bit of their lustre for me as well. I still think they are well written and thought provoking to a point. I still think that any series that can inspire kids to read on such a magnitude as this series has done, is worth something. Bah! Ramblings. . .must stop the off-topic ramblings.

I believe the reason for this is because we are taking it all from Harry's perspective. We cannot see a "good" side to Snape while watching the world through Harry's eyes. Harry doesn't see Snape's good, or even importance. Harry doesn't seem to see many people importance unless they somehow benefit him, in my opinion. It would be too much of a contradiction for the point-of-view for Harry to be so adamantly hating Snape and for him to view him as anything but his notions that Snape is evil.

But we aren't arguing whether he's nice or not. . .he isn't. We're not even suggesting it. There are plenty of non-evil people in the world today who are not, on their best of days, nice. Nice does not equal good. We do see some of his actions that go above personal feeling, though. He does agree to teach Harry occlumency (no matter how badly it is botched, he agreed to do it), we see him brewing a potion for Remus (he could definately have refused), he did try to stop Quirrel from getting the stone-even sustaining an injury- He did stop Harry from falling off of his broom (even if you think his motivation is questionable), he did try to aprehend Sirius Black-whom all suspected of murder. Are all of these for personal gain, for notoriety, for vengeance? It's really anyone's guess at the moment, but we do see that he sometimes puts others before himself. Heck, even taking that cursed vow with Narcissa shows us a more self-sacrificial Snape, it shows us that he does have a heart and that heart does feel emotions.

(sorry, that's kind of an arbitrary quote of a larger thought) I wouldn't see it as such. It would show kids today that they know more than their elders. That there is no need to respect, listen to, or even try to understand those with more knowledge and experience. It would give kids the notion that even their eleven-year-old decisions are more palpable and correct than our more experienced ones. It would undermine adult's authority . . .it would make our comments/criticisms/opinions completely obsolete because, after all, the eleven-year-old has been right from the very beginning. This is what would bother me the most if Snape is written truly evil.

But we are shown Filch cares for his cat even though Harry doesn't like him either.

And risk Dumbledore's wrath by endangering students (or himself)? I can't see how he could have refused.

This is an excellent point and worth more discussion. As prosecution I felt that he only took this vow to appear superior to Bellatrix (to stick it to her). His pride trapped him into doing something foolish.

If that lesson was to be learned, it would have sunk in from the first book when Harry supposedly saved the day by going against the wishes of his teachers, and even his going against his guardian's wishes by going to Hogwarts to begin with. It is the nature of fairy tales.

In HBP, Snape was a huge part of Harry's world (mainly because of the potions book). Before that he was not really important to Harry, and more of an obstacle if anything. He may be returned to that status in the next book, nothing more than an obstacle. His guilt would not then have that big an impact on the overall story.

I feel the defence is way too emotionally attached to Snape (for reasons Louise cited) and credit him with much more importance than he has. He is another Wormtail or Umbridge that has had his moment in the sun and may yet get his come-uppence or saving scene, but should not be the focus of much else.

To say his guilt destroys the books seems unjustified if he is just another 'background' character - a bit more important than Gawp, but not more than Ron or Hermione - who are always very central to Harry's tale.

I interpreted that, at one time, as evidence of Snape having a heart too. Now, I just think he couldn't stand Narcissa snivelling any longer, hence him shoving more wine into her hand. Not because he cared, but just because she was irritating him and he wanted to shut her up. I think the only reason he was reluctant to take the Vow is because he didn't want to die. Otherwise, it wouldn't have made any difference to him. So, he has to kill Dumbledore. Big deal. Not much of a challenge. He just didn't want Voldemort to find out about it, probably. Afraid of the comeback on himself if Voldemort found out that his DE's are working with each other to undermine his authority.

No, I agree. But bajab is right - there's not even been a hint that he's done anything nice for anyone off his own back. No hint that he cares about anyone or anything - other than suppositions. We just can't deny that, and everything that he has apparently done was done under duress - as he freely told Bella and Narcissa.

These books aren't fairytales. In fairytales, we always know that the evil person is really evil. There is never any ambiguity or actions that may have duel-interpretations. Thus Janet is right - why do kids need adult guidance at all, if their first impressions and rash thoughts are always the right ones? Why do they even need to go to school? Just throw a few books at them, tell them to go read what they want and then go with their guts. It just doesn't seem right to me. Every kids book I've ever read has some kind of steadying adult influence - from Enid Blyton's Famous Five stories to the Railway Children. The kids are the main focus, but they still need guidance.

Because we, the readers, aren't supposed to mistrust/trust Filch. He's not an integral part of the plot. He's just a nasty old man.

He refused doing something in HBP, and didn't suffer Dumbledore's wrath. Refusal to do something does not warrant wrath, and I don't think, based on Dumbledore's character, that he would have been wrathful-just disappointed.

Whether or not we're emotionally attached to him isn't relevant to his being a major player in the books. His past has always been just there, lurking under the surface. We've always questioned him in some capacity or another. Yes, Rickman's performance has given him a lot of popularity, but that does not, in any way, shape my opinion's of his character. He is a difficult and complex character, no matter who plays him in the movies. I don't think we can give him much more importance than he has at this precise moment in the books. He just killed Dumbledore. He's an important piece of Harry's puzzle.

Up until this book, I've been fine with Harry's undermining authority because it furthers the plot. I have always, always thought that he lacked any consequences to his actions . . . and there should definately have been some in light of all he's disobeyed. That's one of the flaws of this series . . . it's always been showing kids that, if they think that they're right, they should go ahead and do it-and they won't even get a hand-smack for disobeying. I've been able to overlook it thus far, but if Harry's first impressions end up correct about Snape-thus undermining any adult's views and opinions-then I think it just drives that point home. It shows kids that they're right, we're wrong and stuff it to us. It would annoy me far more than anything else has thus far!

I don't see how believing in Snape is such the great sin that the prosecution is saying it is. You believe him bad, we believe him good for many different and some of the same reasons. We, either of us, could be right in the end . . . but that doesn't make it wrong to believe him good for now.

I agree. What he has done is bring Snape more to my attention in the past, but now that Snape has leaped to the centre of attention anyway, it's all the same, really. Anyway, I've recovered of my unhappiness of yesterday, because I just decided that if Snape is evil, I'd rather postpone the shock and anger for a few months and enjoy the last bit of my being a carefree HP-fan. If he is good - well, then there's no problem!

Yeah, this is one of the major reasons why he is not one of my top three favourite characters. (They are Dumbledore, Snape and Hermione). Don't get me wrong, I like him a lot, for his bravery and pluck and whatnot, but I always thought he was a tad ...arrogant, for ignoring rules that were mostly set up for his own safety more than any other person. At first I thought, as Jo intended, that Snape was a real git for saying things like "he's been crossing lines ever since he arrived here" or whatever, but it actually grew on me and pretty soon, looking at the things Harry did mostly at-the-spur-the-moment or in a rage, Snape's got a bit of a point. He is nasty, yes, but then, Tom Riddle was Head Boy...

Lol, that would be spot on if Snape was bad! I must say, Louise, since turning prosecutor you've made some great points for the defense :

If all this is true it means that JK Rowling is the daftest and stupidest writer ever - I mean, even I would know what this is spelling out, and heaven help you all if I ever tried to write a series about a wizarding world that I made up myself. This is taking a lot of due credit away from her - she has us all reading these books like mad - she can't be that daft. We've been spell bound by her for ages!

Nah, she's either a complete moron, or there is actually something more to the books - and Snape must therefore be good. I simply don't believe a moron could have created this magical world that has such an enormous fan-base, with adults and kids alike queuing in the wee hours of the mornings for her books. She must have a brain, so she can't make Dumbledore stupid, Harry perfect and Snape evil. It's inconsistent, incongruous, insane, insipid - utterly impossible.

EDIT>> Ooh, you posted while I was typing, Albus-wan. Great point!

which seems to suggest that Snape has been in touch with Voldemort recently, but once again we only have Snape's word for this. He could be bluffing.

We know that Snape hesitates when Narcissa asks if he will complete Draco's task should the latter fail to do it himself. If he knew what Draco's task was, the hesitation would be because he didn't want to have to kill Dumbledore himself. If he didn't, he could simply have paused to consider the risk inherent in taking the vow without knowing what the task was, weighing it against the potential benefit in gaining the information about that task itself.

Flash forward to that fateful night on the tower. Both sides of the argument are agreed that Dumbledore was not pleading for his life. We have been told from the very beginning that Dumbledore does not fear death, so it is unlikely that he would plead for his life. We also know that Dumbledore has cast a binding spell on Harry, who is conveniently hiding under his cloak and therefore invisible to those present. Snape enters and, eventually, casts the spell which will end Dumbledore's life. We are told that, while casting the Avada Kedavra, Snape's face shows signs of intense revulsion. We see the spell hit Dumbledore squarely in the chest and his body fall over the battlement and off the tower.

All in all, things are left quite ambiguous, with the notable exception of Snape cast the AK which seemingly killed Dumbledore. While that very act is, in and of itself, a horrible one, it may be that this was all part of a plan, or a response to a series of events which went horribly wrong. If we base our judgement solely on Snape's casting of the spell, he would indeed be guilty as charged of the murder of Albus Dumbledore. But if Dumbledore foresaw is own potential demise and agreed to be killed should things get that far, can this still be murder? Again, no evidence of this (yet!), but should this prove to be the case, if Snape was indeed abiding by Dumbledore's wishes, does this make a difference?

Let us also not forget what Dumbledore's death at Snape's hand means. It means Snape is freed from the vow. It also means that Draco is not a murderer, making him realize the only reason he agreed to do Voldemort's bidding was to protect his family (nobility? From Malfoy ) Coud Draco be the one to be redeemed by Snape's actions? Could it be Draco who will turn on Voldemort and ultimately be instrumental in the Dark Lord's defeat? And if so, can Snape truly be considered a vilain when his actions led to this child being redeemed? Draco being a contemporary of Harry's, and his polar opposite as far as the Good VS Evil axiom is considered, would it not make perfect sense to have him be redeemed to show that people can change over time? Perhaps Snape was meant to be an example of a failed redemption (being the evil one who failed to come back to the Good side), but whose actions ultimatey broke the cycle and led to a child who could've been another evil pawn being saved and playing a vital role in defeating Voldemort forever? These are, after all, stories about an for children/youths. Would it not make sense, narratively at least, for the climax of the stories to have the main protagonists somehow be those very children through which we were introduced to this world?

Again, all speculation. But we do know that Draco did not kill Dumbledore, Snape did. We know Draco was only trying to save his family by doing Voldemort's bidding. We also know that Snape would have died had he not completed Draco's task. Dumbledore's death does seem to have saved many.

As I wrote this, I realized that my position is actually somewhere in the middle, in that I don't think Snape is Good, but neither do I think he is Evil. In my mind, he is ultimately instrumental to the victory of Good over Evil, as he will have motivated many to do things by his actions. His killing of Dumbledore appears to be, sadly, fact. I would have liked Snape to ultimately be a tragic hero who spills all his secret as he dies in the hero's arms just befre the latter blasts Voldemort off the face of the Earth. But can we say he is evil if he served to save children from bloodying their hands?

Ok, I've rambled on enough. And I would like to add a small comment for my friends who fear they will forever loathe the books if the story goes this way or that. Remember how much enjoyment you got out of these books, regardless of the outcome, that is what counts. Not just the enjoyment of reading the actual stories, but the enjoyment of talking about them, sharing ideas and personal viewpoints on our favourite characters, settings and mythical creatures. DEbating their motivations, finding plotholes or inconsitencies. Writing about characters that have become dear to us over the years and creating new stories about them, developing what we think showcases their individual qualities and weaknesses. Can the fact that the canonical texts do not end the way we thought they should really take all of that away?

Peace all!

Now, see, I have a problem with this. Where has Voldemort ever admitted to being afraid of Dumbledore? Isn't that precisely the type of propaganda that would be advantageous to the Order? I find it very hard to believe that characters as self centred, proud and arrogant as Snape and Voldemort would ever fear anyone. To fear them, they would be acknowledging that someone else was better or powerful than them, and I don't see either of them doing that. So, either JKR is not being true to her own characters, or it's propaganda from the Order designed to improve moral and instill more confidence in Dumbledore than he probably deserves.

In short, I don't think Snape was afraid of anyone.

As for the events that night, he probably stunned Flitwick because then his position was still recoverable. He still wasn't sure, at that time, what exactly had happened. Though why he was in his office when everyone else was supposedly patrolling the corridors, I don't know...ostrich syndrome, probably...anyway...

So Snape gets up to the tower and he finds he has a choice - kill Dumbledore, or he risks dying himself. The choice was simple - he did the Slytherin thing and protected himself by fulfilling his vow. It's probably not much more complicated than that. Maybe the hatred and revulsion was precisely what he was feeling - hatred of Dumbledore for keeping him down for so long, revulsion of Dumbledore's weakened state...Snape certainly doesn't tolerate weakness, his irritation with Narcissa proved that. Maybe he was disgusted with himself, that he didn't resist Dumbledore harder, now he is finally seeing him so weak and defeated. Maybe bajab was right - that the contrast between Harry feeling those emotions, and Snape that's important, how the morals driving them both are so antithetical. If Harry is Dumbledore's man, then is Snape Voldemort's?

It has done mine, I'm afraid, being one of those unfortunates who discovered HP through the films. And being someone who has always had a very soft spot for the bad guys I'm trying hard to separate out the way I've been thinking about his character and when I do, I'm forced towards only one logical conclusion - that the prosecution are right when they say Snape has never actually done anything nice for anyone. It's all been under duress or as an action to protect himself. I don't even think he's on the fence anymore. I think he probably has been for a long time, but not since Voldemort returned. I don't see how you can be loyal to both sides, not deep down in your heart of hearts. You always know what's right - if you go against your own morals to join the winning side, then that makes you the biggest coward ever. Mmm....Maybe that's why Snape got so touchy about being called a coward - because Harry touched a nerve with him.

As do I, but now I'm beginning to think that if she did do this, it would be very Star Wars-ey. If he really has gone bad at the end of HBP, anything he does now pales in comparison to the crimes he has committed now. It would be contrived, even worse than the H/G ship. Either be good all along or be bad all along - don't change sides at the last minute and hope to pull it off convincingly. It just won't work.

I know you disagree with this, Mason, but how could Snape possibly be redeemed now? He has committed murder. He has betrayed the faith and trust of the only man ever to give him a second chance. Heaven only knows what else he's done in the DE's that we don't even know about. Either he's good, or he's evil. If he's evil, and decides to change sides later, JKR would have to be one extraordinary writer to pull it off successfully and whilst I love the HP series, she's certainly no Stephen King or John Connolly. I fear greatly that I'll be left disappointed and with an exceptionally sour taste in my mouth over the whole series.

Ah....right....okay, I see where you're coming from Well, I think our fundamentally opposing views on this particular hot potato are why we're butting heads over this issue as regards Snape. I'll thus stick to my position - some things are unforgivable, no matter what you do to try to make up for them. You can't do one good thing or simply say 'sorry' and hope that everything goes away. You should be a good person to start off with, and keep it going. Otherwise, you're just a coward.

That word again

But not like this! He trusted a DE with children in their most formative years!! Why do you think Hitler started the Hitler Youth? Mould them young - indoctrinate ideas from the youngest possible age when kids are at their most impressionable. He couldn't possibly have done anything worse!! He can't possibly just shrug and say he's human, not at the risk of so many young lives. It was irresponsible, arrogant, foolish...certainly not the actions of a great man. Again, I think this is JKR's fault - if she wants us to see Dumbledore as "human", then she should not have made his character such that his decisions had an effect on the whole school. You can't think so narrowly when you have to consider others - it wasn't for him to exercise his trust over the rights of the children to be safe whilst at school. One wonders, actually, if everyone made such a fuss about their children being taght by a werewolf, why weren't they bothered about them being taught by a former DE? Is their faith in Dumbledore that strong? Aren't they going to be angry when they realise what happened? Won't they withdraw their kids from the school? Won't that shut Hogwarts? Oh...looky here...Hogwarts closed, another thing very likely to happen in book seven

No, I don't think so. From what I recall, JKR said that Draco is a very two-dimensional, easily figured out little guy. He's rotten to the core and there will be no redemption for him. So, it's a nice idea, Marc, but I don't think we'll be seeing Draco switching sides.

I agree - but I will nonetheless be leaving the series disappointed. I'd rather leave it on a positive, uplifting note. But there we go...it's JKR's series, she'll do whatever she wants with it.

Capricorn, about that mark - I don't know. I can only presume that, inside, Snape was squirming...anxious for the order from Dumbledore that would allow him to return to Voldemort's side. He was angry in the face of Fudge's constant denial of his master and in his frustration, almost boastful, he said look, here, see for yourself. Just as Barty did in the movie. Not canon, I know, but JKR does have an influence in these things. I always used to see that the way you do, but looking at it with fresh eyes now, it seems more likely that Snape was being boastful. He was fully confident in Dumbledore's defence of him that there was no risk to himself. Everyone knows he's a former DE anyway. But as everyone keeps saying, you don't leave the DE's. Everyone who tried ended up dead.

Sheesh, what are we over here? Chopped liver?

I think Snape showing the darkened mark to Fudge was a little hasty, as well. If he were truly on Voldemort's side, I don't think he would have wanted to prove that he had come back. As it turned out, it didn't really matter since Fudge was an idiot. . .but I would have thought that Snape would have kept the proof to himself while Voldemort was regrouping.

Unfortunately, I'm actually finding myself not caring anymore! I'll still hold to his ultimate "goodness," but I don't care if he ultimately bad now. As I've said before. . .I think he's fulfilled his character's main purpose whatever happens with him now, so I'm good. I hope for his redemption in our eyes. (Or at least his redemption to "goodness.")

I do think, however well Alan plays him onscreen, the movie-Snape has done a disservice to the character. It does paint him in a more humourous and positive light. He's more protective of others, more vehement in his opposition to Voldemort, and a bit more comic. If the movie were to hold true to the books-by keeping him nasty at all times (though, I hate to admit, I find some amusement in his constant nastiness)-would Snape have had as much of a following? I do try my best to seperate the mediums so as not to base my view on Snape's character from the movies . . . but I can see where the movies would probably mislead a lot of people.

Ah now, much as I agree with you Janet, I think it's more WB than Alan - he can do no wrong. You are right, though, that he's portrayal in GoF was too humorous. I find his whole 'veritaserum' scene quite chilling, but the Great Hall scene where he hits Harry and Ron is too comic. However, I think he's got something going there. I don't think Alan Rickman, villain of villains, would play a comic and slightly more feeling role if there weren't a reason. Saw Rasputin? He can be dead scary - so why isn't he (always)? This is of course pure speculation, but does he know something?

Ok, I know that Alan's portrayal can hardly serve as proof or grounds for assumption, but since it's come up anyway... Just a comment, I'm not entirely convinced myself, though I'd hate to think that Alan did any character a disservice - I'll just blame WB's lame attempts to put some of Jo's British humour back into the movies and failing horribly!

Anyway, moving on...

I thought that as well. Especially since this mystery has been building up from our first encounter with him in book1. It'll just be really boring if that was it, end of story - the biggest mystery would be why Snape was a mystery at all.

I don't want to harp on about this (not here anyway ), I'll just say this: Western Law is deeply grounded in Ancient Roman Law, so while some of the Christian morals still remain in Western society, our law system was always secular. (Death Penalty anyone?) And the law has definitely influenced Western morals. Within the secular HP world it would be impossible for someone to achieve complete redemption (from betrayal and murder), without really making it a religious issue, which is somewhere I'm sure Jo wouldn't want to go...

So, wait a minute, Snape gets the honourable death after betraying and killing in cold blood the only man who ever believed in him, while the kind hearted mentor, friend and protector of so many dies undignified and without honour? (I can see where the Christian thing will be going, Mason - whores and thieves, right? ) It's just that I really don't think Jo will go there.

Ah, in my mind, I just keep getting back to a point where everything hangs with dear Snivellus - I actually hate that name. It's why we're here in the first place.

About Snape's boasting manner when showing Fudge his arm, Louise - yes, it could be, but it's an answer that indicates a weak and poorly developed character and Jo totally getting it wrong on so many levels.

I much more prefer a solid, yet mysterious man, who gritted his teeth in the face of animosity, ridicule and deep running wounds, and became good for the mere sake of it. Dumbledore said to Voldemort that there are things worse than death - isn't being rotten to the core, and never sharing love and friendship, a fate far worse and more terrifying than simply dying?

Not trivialise, summarise.

To trivialise I would have written
1) Ever hopeful DD, the guy that let a disguised Death Eater, a werewolf and even a man possed by Voldemort himself loose in his school, though getting on in years and self-admittedly a maker of very large mistakes, kept repeating he trusted Snape, like a person trying to convince himself of it, though he didn't give him the Dark Arts position until the last book.
2) It would suck if the books made Snape bad and the books don't suck
3) Alan Rickman makes Snape too cool a dude to be a bad guy, even if he is meant to be a typical Slytherin
4) Snapes a hero for doing things he was wasn't forced to do and some things he was told/forced to do, even thoug hhe might not have done as good a job as he should have done.



I have asked a few times before for the defence to summarise their points, but nobody complied, so this time I thought I would do it. I also see very little difference in your points list to mine except you go on to explain them more, replace one and added an extra one. Here is your the revised list in summary, please correct it if it is wrong.

1) Dumbledore trusted Snape unwaveringly
2) Snape has been a redemptive character before
3) Snape's explanation to Bellatrix is written in such a way that it could have a double meaning.
4) Snape has performed acts of good
5) Dumbledore is wise and was right about people in the other books.
6) It is possible DD planned this

Rebuttal
1) Well, as prosecution I'll give you point one. DD trusted Snape, although there is still no adequate reason to not have given him the DADA post before, that no longer exists in HBP. If he believed the position was cursed, why did he give it Remus or Moody, friends of his! Are you saying he wanted to get rid of Snape even before the Draco plot came out?
2) The only place I can see that Snape was actually redeemed was book one. There has been no redemption for his cruelty to the students or to his actions in book three
3) QQS's point that Bella did not argue with Snape over his claim to have supplied vital info that killed one of the good guy sinks point three. She was attacking his loyalty, but accepted that one, proving that she had reason to believe it was true.
4) There are consistent and logical explainations or ulterior motive for every single act of good Snape has done.
5) Dumbledore is only human and has admitted to making huge mistakes before. I have pointed out several times how often he has made big mistakes, and that he has not always been that good a judge of character, sometimes trusting people who have not fulfilled that trust.
6) If DD knew it was coming, why didn't he plan it better?

Probably why we didn't give you a summary . . . (that's the only post I found actually speaking for a summary from both sides-I only looked back through page 8, so perhaps there was one prior.) I, speaking for myself only, didn't understand this as a request for a summary.

You're summaries were, as you put it. . .from your POV. . .which is fine. I just wanted to try to put out a summary for the defense not colored by the prosecutions objectives. (I'm not calling you out for being wrong, bajab. . .it's fine for you to use a summary for the defense and color it anyway you like as long as we do get to put our points out there without them sounding trivial. Sorry if I've offended. No intent to do so.

I think we all agree that Dumbledore trusted him. It's not so much that Dumbledore trusted him unwaveringly, but rather that Dumbledore's unwavering trust is valuable. It is what makes Dumbledore such a great man, and if his great virtue turns out to be a fatal flaw, well... not much hope for the message of trust and forgiveness. (moral, message, character developement - strike 1)

About Dumbledore being wise and having shown well-placed trust before. Yes, that is true, but it's more than that. I rather feel that he symbolises an ideal in that respect - someone with an infinite but fair capacity to trust people. He symbolises the case for love and trust - if he meets his end because of this very ability, it would do much damage to the overall message of trusting people without letting personal issues and prejudice get in the way. I mean, Dumbledore the great man is hoodwinked while Harry Potter, pipsqueek of 11, sees right through the bad Professor's evilness, so stick it to the grownups! (moral, message, character developement - strike 2)

Snape rescued Harry in his first year and showed his arm to Fudge. The prosecution claimed that it was rash acts by a man ruled by his ego. And yet, Snape has shown an immense ability to handle stress and his own emotions throughout the books. His subject is potions - a subtle and objective art, where rash behaviour has no place. It is a precise and calculated subject, where logic and focus are absolute necessities. If he was killing Dumbledore out of hatred and revulsion for him, that hatred never showed in 16 years that he worked for him. He walked with those feelings for nearly two decades and never showed a sign of it. Surely that requires a great measure of self restraint? Snape is sketched the cool and calm man - chilly, who has only ever lost his temper in extreme situations. He is not a blunderer like Harry. I like Harry, but of the two, Harry is definitely more rash and impulsive - and ruled by ego. Sorry, but he likes playing the hero - if it came to saving people, Harry is rather the one driven by ego (he has no malice of course).

So in moments of relatively little provocation, Snape lets his ego rule his actions, while his whole personality is rather that of a calculating, focused and logical man. He is cold and sarcastic, and not dashing about after his ego. I find that a bit odd and out of character.
(moral, message, character developement - strike 3, you're out!)

If Snape was evil, there would be little left of many themes and character developement in the books. Yes, it could be that all this is really just a children's book, and that I'm reading too much into this. I can just say - I hope not.

About the redemption thing, I have a question: according to this, when did Snape more or less switch sides, and where are his loyalties at the moment? In other words - did he kill Dumbledore in cold blood and will be redeemed of that, or is the redemption more in the line of his past with Harry?

Except when it came to throwing a jar at Harry after seeing his worst memory, or when he attacked Harry after he called him a coward, or when he lost his Merlin award and screamed at Fudge, then slammed the door of the hospital wing, or when he got into a loud argument with DD...
Sorry Capricorn, but I think that sinks the "Snape is always cool, calm and collected argument". He in truth seems to often handle stress very badly, but his ego is always in full effect.

Well that is pretty much what happened in the first book after all. He went against their wishes and saved the stone. Then in the second book he went against their wishes and saved Ginny. Then the third book he didn't just take their word Black was bad and gave Sirius a chance to explain. Then the fourth book he told Cedric about the Dragons (it was against the rules). Then the fifth book he went against Umbridge and the Ministry to teach the DA. Then the sixth book he believed Malfoy was up to something and needed to be watched despite DD telling him not to worry about it. See a pattern yet?
But aside from that, remember that Snape has always treated Harry and his friends badly, and that is the main reason Harry hates him and thinks the worse of him. Also not all grownups trusted Snape!, so he was not alone in his feelings (Sirius for one).

This is a message the defence sees in the book that I do not, which is why I listed it as an argument for the defence (see point two in my original list)

Three strikes? More like three wides.

FYI Passerby yeah, it was further back:
Page 5 -

This topic moves so fast it is easy to miss bits.

I thought it was fairly objective though.

My answer to this is in the post with the summary on this page.

I'm going to put your fifth rebuttal point here as well, since I didn't include this one in my summary and it seems to follow in point one:

Because he also knew that it didn't necessarily end with death. . .because each of these people had something vital to bring to Harry and the school at the times in which they were appointed DADA teacher. Because, aside from Moody and Slughorn, they were the only ones who applied for the position (besides Snape, whom he did not want to lose at those points) and the only ones willing to take them. The list of possibilitis for each appointment can go on and on. . .

Also, we aren't arguing that Dumbledore's trust in him is a reason for Snape's innocence (as marc said, I think), but that his trust is reliable and believable.

We, hopefully as a collective defense, believe that Dumbledore's judgment in people has not been discredited: the actual people whom he has trusted have come through for him. Regardless of lies and deception they may have used to try to pull the wool over his eyes-they have been in his camp and done good services to Dumbledore.

His redemptive pattern starts before the books are set: When he comes back to the "good" side and leaves Voldemort . . .when Dumbledore is convinced enough to let him teach at Hogwarts . . .when he saves Harry from falling to his death . . .when his actions don't necessarily coinside with his nasty demeaner. . . when, after running from the tower, he does prevent other death eaters from even harming Harry. The interview between PoA and GoF when she was "surprised that people picked up on that because more will be revealed in book 7" (total paraphrase) means that we haven't seen the end to Snape's story: Book seven, after all, not book six. If, at that time, she were planning to reveal the end-all be-all Snape. . .she surely wouldn't have given the book a number and just said "a future book."

My argument here will most likely not be seen by you as anything valid. . .but I'm putting it in again anyways: Because he claims ownership of Sirius Blacks death in the same sentence and she also doesn't argue the point, though she is the one who takes credit for killing Black. He manipulates words to make them hear what he wants them to believe.

I think the point here is that, regardless of any ulterior motive we may see in him at a later point-some of his actions have had good results for other people.

He did the best with what he had at the time that he had it. It's not Snape's fault if Dumbledore's plan was weak and unfathomable.

Ah, my dear defense team. . .it may be time for me to take a small hiatus from this thread before my irritation gets personal.

How could Lupin turning into a werewolf with the marauders and endangering people's lives be good service for Dumbledore? Lupin himself acknowledges he betrayed DD's trust, and DD made a mistake judging Lupin to be responsible enough not to do it.

But then attacks and wounds Harry himself.

How could she argue that point, when it is true?

By this logic, the Dursley's treatment of Harry probably stopped him becoming a Slytherin, and so were good? The end can't justify the means.

If that is Dumbledore's best, he is incompetant. He had a whole year to figure a way to save both Snape and Draco and came up with letting Snape Kill him and Draco to return to the Dark Lord he failed.

But I have another point to discuss.
The very second that Voldemort touched wormtail's mark, Snape knew he was back and where to find him, and yet nobody went looking for Harry. Surely in the time that passed between Voldemort summoning his followers and Harry escaping, Dumbledore would have done something, had he known. The only conclusion is that he didn't know, which means Snape did not tell him.

Good point. My answer to that would be that maybe Snape was doing the same thing as Lupin - keeping something from Dumbledore out of fear, not disloyalty. However, this needs some more consideration, so this is not my final answer... For now though:

I'm with you there Janet. And no-one is saying that Lupin thought he was doing Dumbledore a service, nor that every action the good guys ever did was solely in service of Dumbledore.

As I've said before, there is a huge difference between seeing into someone's heart and knowing that they were good, and knowing every lie they ever told or everything they ever hid from you. You can't argue that Lupin is on the good side - and Dumbledore knew that. Dumbledore isn't omniscient, but he has never misplaced his trust in someone's inherent goodness of heart. He has, however, mistrusted a boy whom everyone loved, because he knew better. Tom Riddle was head boy - and yet the only man who saw through him was Dumbledore.

Maybe we have different opinions about how stressful Snape's life was. His worst memory - wouldn't you lose it too if the person you hated most saw the most embarrassing moment of your life? I'd say that is pretty normal. (Well, I lost it to the same extent when someone went through my diary). Loss of the Order of Merlin? After the man you probably hate just as much escaped from under you nose? That's a double blow of the worst kind, so losing it there is also not as unexpected. I'd say that is some harsh provocation, even if he was being nasty at the time. Loud argument with Dumbledore - that can be explained by the fact that Dumbledore might have been asking him to kill him, but since we don't know definitely what the cause for the argument was, it would not be fair for either side to judge Snape's reaction. By all means interpret it - but it would be the assumption atop an assumption thing again. Same with him attacking Harry - the defence believes he lost it because he had just done something that required unbelievable strength and discipline. He had to kill the only man who, whether he was right or wrong, believed in him in his entire sad life. That takes some doing...

These are all situations where provocation was unbearable. I'm talking about a man who had to hold his tongue and his body language for 16 years, after having a very abusive childhood, bullied teenage years and someone who never had friends, who then had to 'pretend' to work with the very people who made his life a living hell - that, imo, is real stress and frustration. I can't think of many worse lives in HP. In my book, if he could manage to keep all that undetected, he had major self control, but we would dissagree on this just like on the 'love, trust and friendship' thing, so yeah.

To me, it doesn't quite sink his cool-and-calculatedness, but there you go, we all have different opinions.

As for my other two 'strikes' - Harry being wiser than Dumbledore for mistrusting Snape is just something I won't be able to digest. It'll only be a 'wide' if the books are considerably shallower than I think. The same with trust and forgiveness.

This is just my opinion, so I'm not necessarily speaking on behalf of the defence - but it looks as though the prosecution would be more disappointed if plot holes emerged if Snape was good, and the defence would be more disappointed if there were no deeper emotional storyline if Snape was evil.

As for plot holes - there have been a few of them through the course of the series, but the emotional message has up till now remained firmly intact, and I hope this pattern continues.

Mmm...no, I don't think so. I think he showed the mark because he was tired of Fudge denying something he knew to be true. He was almost rubbing Fudge's nose in it - declaring he was a Death Eater and proud of it, whilst knowing all the time that Dumbledore was his safety net. Very Slytherin of him. I don't think he did it to show his support for Dumbledore - it would have been unnecessary.

Ditto. But I think that, given his personality, his allegiance has always been with Voldemort in spirit because he offers Snape the power and ability to dominate others that it's becoming apparent to me that he really needs. He must feel incredibly trapped in Dumbledore's world. In Voldemort's, he's free to be who he truly is. But he's always going to preserve himself. That's probably why he and Lucius are such good friends - Lucius is the same. He is self-serving and puts on a mask when Voldemort was gone - now he's back, he reveals himself. As has Snape, apparently.

I hadn't thought about it like that, but yes - very plausible. It does seem now as though that's the exact reason that Dumbledore resisted giving him the DADA position. Which implies that there was a certain level on which Dumbledore still had his doubts about him. Yet he still gave him the benefit of the doubt. Rather foolish decision in retrospect. One of many foolish decisions it would seem. Like giving Lockheart the job, trusting Lupin, not putting a stop to Tom's antics when he had the chance, failing to protect Emmeline etc etc.

But that trust seems very misplaced. And given that he didn't give the DADA position to him before, it seems that even his trust wasn't 100%. Why didn't he take action then? Because he was an emotional fool who wanted to believe the best of everyone. And he paid the price for it.

Yeah, I used to think so too. But he's not really, not when you think about it. Malfoy came under suspicion in CoS, so technically, we could say the same about him...that he has a redemptive pattern. But he doesn't. He's a nasty, evil, selfish little twit who was only upset because he was afraid for himself. Not because he was worried about the act of murder. When you think about it, Snape hasn't actually done anything to redeem himself to set up a pattern. Harry's judgement has been wrong once or twice, that's all. It's not the same thing as a redemptive pattern.

All because they also benefited him - they consolidated his place at Dumbledore's side and secured his future, should Voldemort not come back. He was looking out for his own interests, as a true Slytherin. He did what was required of him - sometimes above and beyond what was required. He did more than was necessary to leave no one in any doubt. But he hated being around the Order - he never dined with them, remember. Never socialised with them. Yet he does socialise, to a certain extent, with the Malfoys. Doesn't that show who he would rather be with?

But there isn't really evidence for that outside of interpretations and speculations. In fact, there's every possibility that Dumbledore had no idea what was going on. He only figured out about Rosmerta at the 11th hour. No, I don't think Dumbledore knew anymore than the rest of us. If he had, he should have done more to protect the children and the school he supposedly cared so much about.

Or perhaps the message is clearer than that - that sometimes, it takes the innocent eyes of a child to be able to see more clearly than an adult ever can. Children have a remarkable ability to see and speak the truth, as anyone who has kids or has been around them a lot could say. Dumbledore was blinded because he *wanted* to believe, as is his nature. Harry was also blind, to an extent, because of everything he'd been told. Plus his own experiences, of course. But we also know from Hermione, Ron and any number of other students that Snape is a nasty, cruel piece of work. They saw through his apparent "redemption" - they saw the truth. That's not such a bad thing, is it? Yes, that shows Dumbledore's weakness and I think it's far more than a flaw...personally, I think it could have been handled better by JKR than this, but there we go...this is what we have. Dumbledore made a mistake. Harry didn't, because he saw with different eyes.

Yes, to an extent. But he does lose it occasionally - as Snape's Worst Memory and HBP proved. He's patient, yes, and always in control because he has to be to play both sides the way he does. But he also has his buttons, as everyone does.

Because he couldn't let it. Dumbledore would have known and he'd have ended up in Azkaban. I think the hatred and revulsion shows just how much Snape has been tortured over the past sixteen years having to live this double life - being *forced* to live it. I suppose it's a bit like the long-suffering wife finally having enough of her bullying, manipulative, domineering husband and whacking him over the head with a skillet after twenty years. There's only so much a person can stand - Snape has his opportunity and he takes it. So he loses his place - big deal. He has a new one now, on the rapidly strengthening side. The side that now looks the most likely to win. (It's not going to, obviously, but from Snape's POV, it does)

I also don't see this anymore. I see 'love conquering all', which frankly sucks like a vacuum cleaner, but there we go...I'll save the hurling until the final book.

Precisely. Sirius and Lupin didn't like him either, though Lupin was a bit more subtle, but then that's who he is. It all speaks to Dumbledore's inate fallacy - he trusts too much, sometimes in the face of contradictory evidence. Which is not a good thing, IMHO.

Indeed. Like Mundungus - who left Harry when he needed him and thus ended up in front of the Wizengamot. Because Dumbledore trusted someone who didn't deserve it. What if the Dementors had succeeded? Another rather large error on Dumbledore's part. And Lupin, who betrayed his trust too.

Ditto. An action that has a knock on, unintentional positive outcome can't be used as evidence for the integrity of the person committing the action. For example, if I set fire to a building and it burns completely down to the ground, that's a bad act. But if the owner was struggling to keep up the repayments, he's quite happy the building has gone because now he has the insurance. Therefore my actions were ultimately good. Does that make me a good person? No, of course not. I'm an arsonist. In other words if, in the act of saving himself by doing what Dumbledore expects of him, he also saves Harry, bonus point. Which is exactly what he's been doing all along.

By this logic, the Dursley's treatment of Harry probably stopped him becoming a Slytherin, and so were good? The end can't justify the means.

But he didn't do anything about it. He doesn't alleviate Slughorn's guilt for having told Voldemort about horcruxes - he's quite happy to let him feel that guilt. Yet he takes no blame himself for standing back and watching Tom become Voldemort. Oh yes, he can sit back in hindsight and say that he always knew he'd turn out badly and that he always knew Tom's true heart, but he didn't *do* anything about it. By his inaction, people died. I don't think Dumbledore deserves to be called a great man at all. He's a weak, trusting man who should have had the courage of his convictions. Clearly he didn't.

But you have to understand Snape's inherent character. Such faith wouldn't mean anything to him. He would see it as a weakness in Dumbledore, and would feed his own ego. It doesn't matter to him that Dumbledore gave him a chance - he's not grateful for it. He's using it because it serves himself to do so. He doesn't care about Dumbledore or who believes in him. That would only matter if he truly wanted to be redeemed, which he doesn't...not now anyway. It's a bit late for that.

So imagine the wonderful, glorious freedom that would finally come in being able to escape from all that and reveal himself. Thus the hatred and revulsion. Thus the pride with which he declares himself the HBP. Thus the pride in Sirius' death and the mockery of James and his son, by association. If he knew, all along, that he was really working against them all, wouldn't that make the burden that much easier to bear? Only if he truly was on the good side might everyone's constant mistrust of him prove to be stressful. But if he always knew, deep down, that he would ultimately stick it to them all....I think his patience would allow him to deal with all that quite nicely.

Well, not if you consider it from the POV that Harry sees more clearly than adults sometimes can, eyes of a child, you know...as I said before. That's not necessarily saying all adults are stupid - just that they can get bogged down in feelings and prejudices that don't hamper children so much, allowing them to see more clearly.

You know, from this side of the fence, I'm not seeing so many plot holes anymore. I'm not saying I'm happy because I'm not. I'd much rather the stories be what I thought they were. I'm just seeing them in a slightly different light now which doesn't necessarily diminish them - it just makes them different, that's all. So those plot holes, to me, fill in quite nicely now.

Sadly.

Lockhart - Dumbledore did have incredible trouble finding someone to teach the subject, Hagrid had said so in Book1 or 2 already, so I don't think he had a choice. Also->

Dumbledore knew the job was jinxed, which was why he probably never gave it to Snape - he'd want Snape to stay on, of course, if he trusted him so completely as he said he did. Snape could have just said that to Bellatrix to convey the idea that Dumbledore did have reason to mistrust him, making Voldemort's trust more reasonable.

About Lupin - he trusted Lupin's heart, but he couldn't know everything about him. His trust was in Lupin's innate loyalty, just as a father trusts his son, although he could not possibly know about all the mischief he has done. That was what the Marauders were doing at the age of 15 - mischief. The idea that it was incredibly dangerous wasn't that clear to them. And about Lupin keeping it quiet - there are things that most people never tell their parents or the people who believe in them because they fear the disappointment it would cause. It's not a question of loyalty, but of failing those who believe in you. That can't be compared to killing them in cold blood, surely?

And again - yes, Mundungus failed him, but he didn't betray him. Mundungus made a mistake, but he was not about to kill Dumbledore.

How could Dumbledore have stopped Tom's antics? He had only the authority of a teacher over him, and he had no proof of anything horrible that he had done. If anything, Dumbledore never acted rashly and without sound proof. Yes, he had hunches, but he only acted on them if he had some form of confirmation or in extreme situations. He wasn't arrogant enough to trust his judgement and bully to the rest - he said himself that he had not known he was standing before the most evil wizard of all time, he just didn't trust him completely. He advised Prof Dippet to not appoint Tom if the were to return. Before he did return, Dumbledore had become headmaster himself.

Later, when Tom returned as Voldemort, he had started the Death Eater thing and was gaining power, and Dumbledore was already keeping a very close eye on him - there never was a time when Dumbledore sat idly and let Tom Riddle get on with his doings undetected. He already knew more than Voldemort had guessed.

Emmeline Vance - we know very little about her, so her death can be interpreted in many ways. It could just as well be that she had sacrificed herself for the Order. It became very clear from Mr. Weasley's whole episode that the Order all knew they were putting their lives on the line - and Dumbledore did not talk it down. He knew it and asked it of the Order members, and they willingly agreed to it. Everyone knew that 'there are things worth dying for'. So Emmeline Vance's death could be a setup - I know it sounds heartless, but if you took into account that she might have saved everything by protecting Snape's cover willingly and bravely - it's actually quite honourable. Harry is the only one who can kill Voldemort, and if Snape is a key figure in the process, it makes sense to give that option whatever it takes.

I must say that I'm not so serious about the redemption thing either. I know Jo herself said something in that line, but I think it has more to do with him turning good 16 years ago and deserving redemption for that. I agree that it was only Harry being proven wrong every time, not Snape being redeemed. He's been too nasty to let his actions towards Harry (even when he helped him) be enought to redeem him from killing Dumbledore. Within the HP framework, that is something that cannot be redeemed, imo. If he did kill Dumbledore in cold blood, even giving his life would seem a poor repayment for betraying the complete trust Dumbledore had in him.

Yes, but Harry is known to jump to conclusions - of the two, I'd say Harry's view of the world was more clouded by prejudice than Dumbledore's. Not that Harry can really help it - with such a past it's quite understandable, but it doesn't change the fact that he is prejudiced. Dumbledore has never been portrayed as someone who reacts rashly and sees the world in through a filter. He readily admitted his mistake of thinking that Snape and Harry could make the Occlumency thing work. He said himself that old age must not forget what it feels like to be young - wise words. Although he knows that he is intelligent, he is always the first to confess his mistakes. Ah, I just can't think of Dumbledore as an arrogant and ignorant fool.

But is Sirius a meditative and level-headed man? No, he's a rash and unpredictable guy (and I love him for it), but he's just as readily led by his own prejudice as Harry. Funnily enough, both have good reason to be mistrusting, but they are still both prejudiced. Lupin - yes, that is who he is. He didn't like Snape - but then, who did? Yet he trusted him because he believed Dumbledore. See, here's something. Voldemort's power lies in spreading discord. Therefore, the counter to that would be if the good side stood together through thick and thin. Dumbledore kept saying that and the Sorting Hat too - Jo made quite sure we understood that.

So why would she destroy that message by having the leader of the good side and the greatest man for trusting people, be brought down by his very ability to trust so fairly and without preconceptions? The trust and forgiveness thing wasn't pulled out of the air by the defence - it has been put there, and quite deliberately, by Jo herself. I'd say that is a major point for the defence - or Jo is being completely inconsistent.

Exactly, he could keep that hatred inside for so long, but then he saved Harry's life and showed Fudge his arm out of rashness and his ego ruling him? Nah, if he could practise that much self-control, he wouldn't have let his ego rule his actions in such unprovoked circumstances like the Quidditch game for instance. I'm still not convinced that he would let his willingness to make Fudge see the truth lead him to possibly ruin Voldemort's chance of a semi-secret return. Where was that incredible self-control there?

It makes more sense to think that he was being sincere about it.

I wasn't saying that even if Dumbledore was wrong, it would still turn Snape's heart, or anything. I was just (trying ) to make the point that Dumbledore believed in him unswervingly, I think... Oh wait no - I was just saying that the events can be interpreted to both sides, so it won't really lead to anything new. Your analysis is based on the assumption that Snape is evil, and ours would be based on the assumption that he was good.

They do, if you believe he is bad. If he were good, the plot holes wouldn't fit, would they? Or maybe I don't understand you completely. Anyhow, I just know that if Snape was bad, Jo has spent way too much time on building imaginary emotional threads throughout the books. It's hard to deny - they're packed with little pieces of wisdom that have all the promise of being tied together in a wonderful way, if only old Snape would be good.

And now, I've rambled on long enough.

Mmm...No, I don't think so. Nobody is actually free in Voldemort's world, and Snape learned this the first time around, I think. He joined to do Dark Magic, something he was good at, and one could argue that Dark is the true Snape, but for the reasons above, I trust Dumbledore, who trusts Snape. I can't find any reason that someone who truly belonged in Voldemort's world would turn on Voldemort in the first place, and that Dumbledore would trust them at all.

Snape wants power, that's why he was with Voldemort in the first place. But he knows that 'power' Voldemort gives out isn't real power. It comes with a price: that you are dominated by Voldemort. Something Snape most definitely doesn't want.

Hind sight is always 20/20. I think that others replied to your other examples rather well, too, so I'll leave it at that.

I don't see how you can say that after HBP. Yes, he was scared of being killed by Voldemort. He's 16! We think we're immortal - until faced with the possibility of death. It's very real, and very scary.

Even more scary is the possibilty of having to kill another human.

The very fact that Malfoy couldn't kill Dumbledore - and knew he couldn't, but tried to force himself to continue with this course to save his mother, completely contradicts his being nasty, evil, and selfish. Everyone thought he was. We all thought he was. But Dumbledore knew better, and that little guess of his worked out. (Can't say quite so much for the Snape thing, but hey, you win some you lose some.)

Louise, you say several times that Dumbledore didn't do anything about Tom Riddle. But really....what could he have done?

First off, you've got to reckon with Dumbledore knowing he could make a mistake (about Tom being bad) and his trusting personality (giving a child, who, to all appearances, seemed great). This alone would stop him from doing anything.

Then you've got to deal with the fact that until Tom left the school, he hadn't *done* anything that Dumbledore could prove. You can't punish an innocent person, and the downside is unless you can prove a guilty one guilty, you can't punish them either.

I don't think there was anything Dumbledore could've done.

And I'm sure he had much more important issues on his mind that Slughorn's druken sorrows.

I know this post was sort of quasi-defensive, and echoed a lot of Capricorn (because I was writing and reading down at the same time, only to realize that Capricorn had already said a lot of what I had) But I think that it's not too bad...I've definitely written worse.

Mostly, I just think that everyone should agree with me, and they'd all be happy.

I'm going to echo a few people. Dumbledore said he was only in a position to keep an eye on Riddle, and Riddle was a beloved student by many of his teachers. He didn't step out of line once; even earned an award for service. He didn't adopt the name of Lord Voldemort until after he'd exhausted all efforts in searching for his father's wizard family-and even then to a very select few who probably still didn't understand what Tom was about.

Point being: Tom hadn't done anything that Dumbledore could concretely put his finger on and say "Hey! This dude's bad to the bone!" and yet, Dumbledore's gut instinct about Tom Riddle was quite on the money.

Who'm I defending? What am I talking about? The who with the what?

Hey! Me too! Oh, wait. . .by "me" you mean "you." Semantics.

Except when he opened the chamber of secrets several times, resulting in the death of Myrtle, then there was the case of murdering his family, and making a horcrux, all while he was still at school.

Dumbledore does not appear to have watched Tom very closely at all and definately did not investigate Hagrid's guilt very well (what about asking Myrtle what happened like Harry did?). He doesn't even seemed to have shared his concerns with the other professors or at least made very little effort to convince them to keep a closer watch on Tom (especially Slughorn).

I don't agree with this myself, otherwise he would not have left his potions book where someone could find it!

Going back further

There seems to be a bit of a misunderstanding here. If you trust someone to do something (or not to as in Lupin's case), and they do, regardless of their true loyalty or reasoning, you were mistaken to trust them - Proof Dumbledore has made mistakes trusting people.

Now look at Fudge. Dumbledore believed Fudge would do the right thing, otherwise he would not have supported him as Minister of Magic (helping when Fudge was sending him owls every day after taking office), and Fudge turned on him - Proof Dumbledore has made mistakes judging people.

And finally look at Sirius. Dumbledore believed he was guilty of betraying his best friend. He never even went to visit Sirius to determine the truth for himself and made every effort to keep him out of the school after he escaped. Only when Harry told DD did he believe Sirius was innocent. A MAJOR mistaking in judging a person's loyalty.

Dumbledore is not infaliable and has made mistakes with people both in trusting and in judging their character/loyalty - This cannot be disputed.

Bajab, this is exactly why we don't agree (not that that's a bad thing, of course). To me, being loyal to Dumbledore in one's heart does not mean that you will never fail him. Harry has failed him (many times), Lupin has failed him, Sirius, James, Mundungus, Slughorn, Hagrid, the list is endless - in short, it looks like almost everyone Dumbledore ever trusted has failed him at some point. Does this mean that he was wrong in trusting any of them? That earning his trust means that you must never make a mistake - what kind of trust is that? Anyone can trust and believe in someone who never fails - it's not a virtue to be able to do that. But Dumbledore's biggest virtue was his ability to trust people's hearts - their inherent goodness. If this was a mistake, it will very definitely destroy his character from a literary p.o.v.

It's quite simple - he is the mentor figure, and mentors always teach their protégé's something (or try to at least) before disappearing from the scene. It's a literary device, and very basic. Most hero stories have it. So what could Dumbledore have wanted to teach Harry?

That's quite easy as well - love, friendship, trust. That was his motto - that the Good side will conquer evil only if they forgot their differences and stood together. No other message of his came through stronger. So if Jo wanted him to teach Harry this, why would the end effect be that Harry realises that trusting people, relying on friends, is something that brings destruction?

I can't see that happening after the trouble she's gone through to bring home the message which Dumbledore and the Sorting Hat made time and time again.

For one reason, Myrtle was off torturing Olive Hornby. We don't know exactly when she returned to Hogwarts to inhabit the toilet.

Another thing, we-seeing this story unfold in the future-alreay know what Tom did and when he did it. Dumbledore had to act, or watch, in the present time. As both sides have already agreed-Dumbledore is not omniscient. He couldn't expell Tom because he simply did not know that Tom opened the chamber of secrets. He didn't confront him about the murder of his family because there was already a person who had confessed to killing them. It wasn't until much later that Dumbledore could have even figured out what he had done-and by then Tom was already Lord Voldemort (for the second time around).

We have never argued that Dumbledore was all-knowing or all-powerful. He's just a cut above the average wizard.

Olive Hornby was still in school, therefore so was Myrtle.

The point is he doesn't appear to have done anything, and if he really did judge Tom's character correctly, he would have done something more than 'keep an eye on him' (an eye that failed to see many, many things)

DD was not a perfect judge of character and tended to trust people with more responsibility than they deserved or could handle, so the argument that DD never made a mistake judging (ie seeing their true heart) or trusting people cannot be used as a defence of Snape.

Definitely not. He wasn't keeping an eye on him, he was spying on him, if you will. He knew that there were a bunch of D-E's waiting for Voldemort in the Hog's Head when he came for the interview, and that they were called D-E's. This knowledge made Voldemort very uncomfortable - he wasn't happy that Dumbledore knew that much - I call that spying. And, since almost all we know about that time in history, is what passed in that memory of Dumbledore, there is nothing to suggest that Dumbledore hadn't already mobilised the Order of the Phoenix into spying actively and protecting people.

On the contrary, his ability to trust people (trusting their hearts, not predicting their choices) is what makes him such a great wizard who is respected and loved by many. He symbolises friendship, forgiveness, love and trust - we are merely saying that if his great virtue turned out to be his fatal flaw, the whole emotional point of his character will be extinguished. Since we do not believe Dumbledore was a dotty old fool whose many wisdoms were chance utterings and that he really had no clue what he was doing, we believe that his trust must be considerd as great evidence for someone's goodness (or evilness, in Tom's case).

He was never perfect, and if that is what makes a great man, there never was one.

Only after he had left school. While in school Tom was able to murder, frame someone, muster a following of less than desirable characters, fool every other teacher, and create horcruxes without DD finding out.

Isn't it easier, more logical, and more in character to accept that DD did not believe Tom capable of anything that extrodinary, because he always wanted to believe the best in people, and as such, was sometimes a poor judge of character?

Sorry? Did I mention Sirius and Wormtail?

Previously the Defence claimed DD's trust/judgment was perfect, this is clearly not the case.

No, the defence must conceed that DD has previously made a mistake in who and how he trusted/believed/judged and having made a mistake at least once, he could have made one again in Snape's case.

We don't really know what was going through his mind about Sirius, do we? Jo (pointedly?) left him out of the discussion about Sirius and Pettigrew in The Three Broomsticks, and also, Dumbledore didn't hesitate to believe Harry about Sirius the moment he told him.

As for protecting the castle - could he have done anything else? He couldn't have been sure about Sirius (though maybe still hoping in his heart that he was innocent).

Maybe this explains Pettigrew vs Snape: like Janet said, if Dumbledore saw something good in someone, I believe there was something good there. Pettigrew was sorted into Gryffindor, and yet he ended up choosing like a true Slytherin would and in the opposite way a true Gryffindor would have done. The Sorting Hat obviously saw something Gryffindor-ish in him at 11. However, through the course of his life, Pettigrew made choices that changed something about him. He actually turned into a Slytherin. Was the Sorting Hat wrong?

When he was inducted into the Order, he was still choosing to live like a true Gryffindor. Maybe Dumbledore saw this in him - this ability to choose the right way - and accepted him into the Order. However, as things moved on, Pettigrew started choosing differently and became progressively more like a Slytherin. It is maybe significant that Dumbledore had not known about the Secret-Keeper switch. He didn't sanction it, so we do not exactly know what his view of Pettigrew was at that moment. The last thing he would do is act rashly and without evidence, but maybe he hadn't really spoken to Pettigrew at that moment in time, so he might not have been absolutely sure about his loyalty.

I do not believe that Dumbledore can predict what choices someone will make in the future - no-one can. He can only judge someone's character at a certain point in time - just like the Sorting Hat. This doesn't mean that if, by choice, a person changes how he sees things, that either Dumbledore or the Sorting Hat were wrong. They had made a sound judgement by what they saw in someone's heart at a specific moment. This theory of mine also slots in perfectly with the fact that Jo has highlighted the importance of choice. Harry chose to become a Gryffindor, he has chosen to fulfill the Prophecy, he has chosen to be loyal to Dumbledore even after his death. Only Harry can make that choice and no-one could know what his choice would be - not even Dumbledore.

So anyway, back to Pettigrew. It is possible that Dumbledore had already begun suspecting Pettigrew, but that he hadn't had time to confirm this before the Potters were murdered. It is significant how little we know of Dumbledore's involvement and thoughts at that time. We only know he thought that him being Secret Keeper was his first option. His opinion on Sirius and Pettigrew has been mysteriously understated. He could have already suspected Pettigrew for all we know...

However, this is not the case with Snape. Right up to the very end, Dumbledore believed in him, and urged Harry to let the matter rest. There is absolutely no shadow of a doubt about what Dumbledore thought of Snape's loyalties. Funny how certain we are of that, while we know almost nothing about what he thought about Sirius and Pettigrew...

Wormtail was in the order. Accept it, it is true.

Yes we do. There can be no doubt at all the he believed Sirius guilty because he left him rot in jail. If DD suspected Wormtail, he would not have accepted Sirius was guilty and would have done something.

All of your arguments for Petigrew can also be applied to Snape. No matter how you look at it, Peter was allowed into the order by DD amnd Siruis was left in jail as guilty.

Yes there is a shadow, called the DADA position. I would also like to point out the hesitant pause DD often gave before saying he trusted Snape as a possible indication that he had more than just a simple "yes/no" answer to the question of Snape's loyalty.

And Snape's heart was to be loyal so long as it protected him. He could have honestly believed, at any point in time, that he was on DD's side. It is amazing how easily some people can convince themselves.

The Defence is flogging a dead horse trying to prove DD's judgement of people's hearts was perfect. It is impossible to prove, through canon, that DD did not make a mistake, but it is possible to prove that he did - Wormtail, Sirius and the others.

DD's trust can still be considered a factor, but it must be recognised that DD made mistakes, even in judging/trusting people. He was only human and not perfect. It is therefore possible he made a mistake with Snape.

I'm not making this a huge argument yet, because I'm not sure how good my memory is on this point, but was Wormtail actually in the Order? I can't remember a time where we are actually told that he is, only that he was the Secret Keeper. I'll let someone who know's canon better than I correct me on this one.

The defense has never, as it's being suggested, claimed Dumbledore to be infallable. They can't, because it's not a defensible argument; Dumbledore himself claims himself fallable.

But there is a difference between being fallable and being an idiot.

You see, there's one major difference between Sirius and Wormtail, and Snape. Dumbledore had an ironclad reason for believing Snape. In Sirius' case, Dumbledore believed him to be the Secret Keeper, and therefore the only possible suspect. It's impossible to overcome such evidence, particularly when Dumbledore has limited power to change a sentence. He could no more have kept Sirius out of Azkaban than he could stop Tom Riddle becoming Voldemort, which I'll get to further down.

In Wormtails case, it wasn't Dumbledore's mistake in trusting Wormtail: It was James and Lily. If you want to blame someone for misplacing trust in Wormtail, it's the Potter's. Dumbledore certainly didn't tell them to trust Wormtail with the most important secret of their lives. He wanted himself, obviously a good choice, and agreed with Sirius, which would've turned out alright.

Wormtail doesn't give you a leg to stand on. Sirius I'll give you, (though there's nothing Dumbledore could've done) but there's something important to learn here. Dumbledore will change his mind about people. He went from trusting Sirius, to, if not believing his guilt, not to our knowledge actively fighting for his innocence, to believing his innocence enough to help him escape. Dumbledore know's he can be wrong, and is willing to change his mind.

We also see this in his willingness to at least hear Harry's hairbrained ideas. Harry say's he'd rather tell Dumbledore he thinks Malfoy was behind the necklace than McGonagall, because he's more receptive. Dumbledore was always willing to hear people out, no matter how stupid or crazy their thoughts.

Except about Snape.

McGonagall tells us Snape was off-limits, mentioning that tantilizing variable, Dumbledore's iron clad reason. Whatever this was, it was big enough to cause Dumbledore to not be willing to admit he was wrong.

Ah, but Dumbledore's pause before believing in Snape. What about that?

Dumbledore knew the stakes that he was playing with here. He's a careful man, he's not going to make a move before he knows the next 15. He is always careful with his answers, and this is no different. But after that first pause, he stops hesitating. This is important.

He never gave Snape the DADA position, more proof of his doubts. What about that?

I've said it before: Snape is vital in this war. He's the only link through which information can pass. Snape know's this, which is why he's been so careful to keep himself in this position, as does Dumbledore.

However, Dumbledore also knows that Voldemort has cursed the DADA position. He tell's Harry this flat out: We've never had a DADA last more than 1 year. He knew that once he gave in and gave the job to Snape, only 1 more year of being able to talk readily and easily with Snape without arousing Voldemort's suspicions. What caused Dumbledore to suddenly give in to Snape and start the clock ticking on Snape, I can't answer, but if I were the defense I'd start asking that question.

As for Tom Riddle: What'd you expect Dumbledore to do? Tom Riddle was brilliant, handsome, Head Boy, top of his class, a member of the Slug Club based on his own attributes alone, powerful and charming. Everybody, and I mean everybody, loved Tom Riddle.

Everybody except the young, though brilliant and charming in his own right, but still young, Transfiguration teacher. Not the Headmaster, maybe not even the Deputy Headmaster, but the Transfiguration teacher. All he has is a vague distrust of the brilliant Tom Riddle.

He may have had a chance in proving Tom guilty of opening the Chamber, but when Hagrid and Aragog are framed as the killers, all chance is out. Now, people won't even believe the Chamber was opened, let alone that the killer wasn't the half giant and his pet spider, but the playboy Riddle.

Keeping Hagrid on as Game Keeper was in itself a phenomenal accomplishment. Hagrid was, according to the investigation, guilty of killing (or at least negligence leading to the deaths of) enough people to seriously threaten the schools future. The political maneuver's Dumbledore must've pulled are in themselves a small victory over Tom, and prove that Dumbledore was not just sitting back. He was, as others have pointed out, spying, and at the same time starting damage control, all the way back to Riddle's school days. Until he could prove anything against Tom, that's the most that could be done.

The parallel's between Tom and Snape are impossible to ignore, as well. Dumbledore was the only person who wasn't sucked in by Tom's charm, and despite the fact that Tom was shown innocent, eventually Dumbledore's hunch proved correct. On the other hand, Dumbledore is the only one who trusts Snape. Both cases, Dumbledore's gut feeling was immovable, something that doesn't seem to be the case. And, I believe, in both cases, Dumbledore will ultimately be proven right.

History repeats itself.

I've got a few more thoughts that were incorporated into the unintentional drafts that I wrote, but I forgot them until now, so I'll just wait and save them for a rainy day.

--------------------------------------------------------------

Now that I'm finished posting, I'd just like to make a mod-note. Please be sure not to get short or sarcastic with someone else. Those types of arguments are much harder to pull off over cyberspace, without body language and the likes. Backs are much easier to be raised, also. I trust you guys, I know you won't get out of hand, but it always helps to get a reminder.

But, they have several times claimed DD never made a mistake in trusting/judging a person's heart. You can check this be rereading many of their posts and arguments including the most recent one by Passerby.

No, he is a solid foundation of proof that at least once DD let somebody into the order who turned around and betrayed them. So unless DD let people in the order who he knew were untrustworthy, it destroys the argument that DD was a perfect judge of character and never trusted somebody who betrayed him.

DD's trust of Snape is the number one, and almost the only, argument the Defence has for proving Snape's innocence. They have repeatedly refused to accept that DD may have been wrong, ever, about somebody because it inceases the probability that he was wrong about Snape.

Yes, we believe Dumbledore makes sound judgements of people's hearts, but we don't think he is infallible. There is, however, a huge difference between looking at a person and seeing their heart as he stands before you, and making a judgement, and looking at that person and seeing who they will become by predicting their choices, and judge them according to that. I'll say this again - no-one, not even Dumbledore, can predict what choices someone will make. He can only see into the person who stands before him.

So, it is possible for a person to change their loyalty, and like Mason said, Dumbledore knew that, but that happens by choice.

We don't know what went on in Dumbledore's heart of hearts about Sirius and Pettigrew - we don't, because it doesn't follow that if he believed Sirius were innocent, he would have gotten him out of jail in a flash. Everything suggested Petigrew was dead - how on earth could Dumbledore have known he had faked his death? Therefore, the evidence of Sirius's guilt was overwhelming. Dumbledore couldn't get Stan Shunpike out of Azkaban, so I really can't see him being able to do anything for Sirius, and getting Tom Riddle chucked into Azkaban either.

What Dumbledore believed about Sirius and Pettigrew is never mentioned - one can believe one thing, hope it to be true in the face of overwhelming evidence, but still not be able to do anything about it.

However, we do know 'without a shadow of a doubt' that Dumbledore trusted Snape right to the very end. He knew the job was jinxed - simple as that. If he trusted Snape like he said hundreds of times through the books, why would he want him getting packed off somewhere after one year of teaching DADA. He trusted him, was a friend to him - and possibly needed him (with Snape being such a master in potions). Dumbledore was in no hurry to get rid of Snape...

To answer your question Mason - what if Dumbledore had already put his and Snape's plan into action? He only got Slughorn to teach potions after the Unbreakable Vow was made. In Spinner's End Snape said nothing about teaching DADA that year, while he did touch on the subject. If there were already a possibility of him teaching DADA that year, he might have said something. Only he didn't, which leaves room for it being decided after he made the Vow. If Dumbledore knew he was dying, and with Snape now having to kill him in the end, there would be no reason why he shouldn't give him the post.

You haven't left room for my argument, here. Pettigrew, when he was inducted, was a good person. Just like he was a true Gryffindor at 11. The difference is that he chose to change - and that Dumbledore could not have predicted. Ever. We don't know what Dumbledore thought of him at the time that he turned evil - Jo has failed to mention that. (Or did it purposefully). Anyway, so while we do not have an ironclad reason for knowing that Dumbledore trusted Pettigrew, we know that Dumbledore had an ironclad reason for trusting Snape. A great difference, considering Dumbledore's calm and steady approach - he readily admitted mistakes, so when he said he had an ironclad reason for something, it was worth a lot. When Dumbledore guessed, he said so. He didn't fling ironclad reasons about - if he said it's ironclad, he meant it 'without a shadow of a doubt'.

The prosecution is starting to blame everything that went wrong on Dumbledore (what with not helping Sirius and not stopping Riddle and all that) - remember, though he was a great man, he was still only one man. To echo Mason, he couldn't argue against overwhelming evidence (that is something a blundering fool would do, not Dumbledsore who is calmness itself).

The prosecution has sketched a Dumbledore who was foolish, blundering, arrogant, selfish, self satisfied, irresponsible and who ultimately had no clue what he was doing. Jo has done as much as she can to sketch the exact opposite image of him - read the funeral chapter again to see what I mean. I cannot believe that that was either a slip-up or a red herring. Jo meant it to be so - if one character's decisions were not to be questioned, it was Dumbledore. I say this in a literary sense - these are books and should be judged as books. The emotional messages of the books will be gone if one of her main characters turned out to be a mockery of how she had sketched him. Bad writing, to say the least.

Anyway, I should say that I am stepping back for a while, I've got a few nasty tests coming up, and old Snape really tapping me.