I want to take up Janet's point here and say that yes, Dumbledore made mistakes, as he himself told Harry, but only when it comes to 'actions', he didn't, however, make mistakes when it comes to personalities. Dumbledore knows the good side within people, he knows the good side in Snape, and may I mention that he always knew that there was something wrond with Tom Riddle.

Of course he can't know everything, he's not a kind of god. He can't know every single animagus in the wizard world. And does he really have to? Is this important to answer the question whether Snape is guilty or not?

Now with Moody, again Dumbledore isn't some kind of god, it's really difficult to know that someone has another identity with the help of the polyjuice potion.

Dumdledore said for many times, and sometimes even became harsh about it, that he trusted Snape. We still don't know why, this is to come in Book 7. I think he has his reason and is right to do so. Because, looked at it on the metalevel (I hope this is the right word in English), Rowling doesn't tell us readers in every book that it is important to trust and then suddendly in the HBP she decides to give her readers the message that you were wrong for five books and you shouldn't trust anyone. Don't you think so?

I think passerby and bajab have hammered back and forth on the fallability of Dumbledore enough, though I will add that I believe it is a misstatement to say that Dumbledore always has to see the best in people. What is true about Dumbledore is that he has judged more people correctly than any other character in the series, so if we were going to bet on people's character, I'll go with Dumbledore everytime.

Some examples. Trelawney. He doesn't put much stock in divination, but he does know that she has certain moments of clarity that are invaluable. Parvati believes in her quackery too much, McGonagall and Hermione more than just a healthy skepticism, but Dumbledore got it just right.

Fudge. Bajab claims he had a misstep in judging Fudge, but this isn't true. Dumbledore always believed Fudge was a fool. He hoped that Fudge would do the right thing, but not more than that.

Riddle. Again, bajab claims there was a misstep here, but even before Riddle went to Hogwarts Dumbledore knew that he was someone that needed to be watched. He may not have watched him as closely as he should have before Hagrid was expelled, but he always knew that he couldn't trust him. Hogwarts entire faculty thought Riddle was a star student, but Dumbledore knew not to trust him.

House elves. Most of the wizarding world abuses them, Hermione wants to free them against their wishes, but Dumbledore knows the appropriate amount of servitude and kindness to give the elves to make them happiest.

Lupin. Most of the wizarding world would never trust a werewolf with a teaching position, but can you think of many characters in the books that would be better in the position Dumbledore gave him?

Scimgeour. It would seem like the Head Auror would be an excellent choice for Fudge's replacement--especially in a time of war--but Dumbledore doesn't trust him. I think the scene in the Burrow where Scrimgeour showed up with Percy was enough to show us that Dumbledore was right again.

This list can get rather long if you thik it's necessary in order to show that of anyone in the books, Dumbledore's is the one we should trust the most--not because he always sees the best in people, but because he has consistently judged more accurately than anyone else. I think, if we're being honest with ourselves, Dumbledore's complete trust in Snape is weighty evidence and should not be brushed off lightly.

I think it's also clear that we cannot take the conversation of a spy with those he is spying on as any evidence of guilt. It needs to be shown that Snape's being guilty better explains all events than other scenarios would.

In this case, Snape's collusion with Dumbledore explains every event that has been brought up as well or better than to say that Snape betrayed Dumbledore and the Order. His conversation with Narcissa and Bellatrix simply shows that Snape is positioning himself to be second only to Voldemort among the dark wizards, which is the best position to be in if he wants to undermine Voldemort and the DEs at a crucial moment to expose Voldemort to Harry.

If it cannot be shown that this does not explain events as well or better than a scenario where Snape betrayed Dumbledore, then the prosecution does not have enough evidence to remove reasonable doubt, let alone convince anyone that he is guilty beyond a shadow of a doubt.

passerby:

OK, I lied. I am back again

It's catching, bajab-I was going to take a slight break too, but here I find myself again.

Dumbledore pleading is another interesting topic to discuss as proof.

The two opinions I seem to come across all the time are the he was either:

1) Pleading for his life.

2) Pleading for Snape to kill him.

I can see at least one other possibility. If Dumbledore had indeed trusted Snape as thoroughly as he told everyone - why did he keep the DADA position from Snape for so long, even going to the extreme of appointing the obviously incompetant Lockhart in preference?

If it was for the reason that Snape indicated - to keep from tempting Snape - then maybe Dumbledore was pleading for Snape not to betray all the trust Dumbledore had shown him over the years by doing anything that would irrevocably side him with the Death Eaters.

It seems pretty safe to assume that, once the other Death Eaters joined them on the roof, Dumbledore knew he was a dead man walking, but he does not appear to be even mildly upset at the prospect. He believes Malfoy is not going to kill him, and so must expect one of the others to do it, but when Snape arrives, suddenly he is begging. Could it be that he saw Snape's betrayal as a bigger issue than his own death? Could it be he was begging Snape not to 'cross the line'? Snape did not have to be the one to commit the final act, and it would not have cost him the trust of the Order to have one, or all of the others do it.

Harry would undoubtably argue that Snape should have tried to save Dumbledore's life, but Snape could easily convince the others there was no chance and he had to play along with his 'double agent' part. By doing the deed himself he has destroyed that possibility.

There is still the possibility that Dumbledore believed Snape capable of rescuing him, but seems less likely.

Arranging for Snape to take Dumbledore's life in order to 'get closer' to V is akin to the allies allowing Churchill to be assainated by a double agent in WW2. It is inconceivable. Soldiers are often sacrificed for the 'greater good', but the top leaders never are. The cost, in terms of morale alone, would so great that it could not be justified by any amount of intelligence gained. Especially since nobody is going to accept any information from Snape now.

I am still unconvinced that Snape's attacking Flitwick is justified as playing the part of a double agent. None of the Death Eaters are going to know what he done, and he had so many other options available to him. He had no reason to stun the little professor and weaken the Order, unless he wanted them to loose.

This attack could not have been part of any grand plan of Dumbledore's, because he did not believe it was possible to get Death Eaters into Hogwarts. So Snapes actions could not have been premeditated. He had no way of knowing what was happening.

If we believe Snape is a Death Eater again, his actions make more sense. He stuns Flitwick knowing that weakens the defenders and inproves their chances of accomplishing the task of killing Dumbledore.

Quick post, I'll probably respond more when I'm not in a rush!

I still see the best explanation for Dumbledore's pleading to be that he was pleading for Snape to follow through with their plan. It fits the best with the argument that Hagrid overheard--Dumbledore was insisting that it would be necessary for Snape to kill him, but Snape didn't want to support the plan any further. Snape wasn't telling Dumbledore he had problems investigating his students because that doesn't fit with his character, and he certainly wasn't telling Dumbledore that he no longer wanted to avoid being a Death Eater (what would be the point?), and he wasn't be telling Dumbledore that he no longer wanted to work for the Order (that would be very much akin to telling Dumbledore he wanted to be a Death Eater, wouldn't it?). I'll leave that topic for now.

Albus, this all makes complete sense to me and I think you're a very important member of the defence team . And I'm convinced that your theory is right. What I ask myself though is why did Dumbledore allow it to look like Snape betrayed everyone if he wnated him to kill him? Couldn't he have shared his 'secret' with Harry, with Lupin, anyone from the order?Why did he leave Snape in such a situation? Which btw also explaines, at least in my opinion, Snape's refusal why he didn't want to do it anymore.

I think he did it because it is so important that Snape keeps his cover within the DE.
However, I'm still confused why Dumbledore didn't tell Harry, after all the preparation he gave Harry throughout the year. Maybe he thought that Harry was still too stubborn and too young to even have the slightest familiar feeling towards Harry. I don't know. Any ideas?

The real reason is that if he had told Harry then JKR couldn't have had such a suspenseful plot and people wouldn't be having these debates.

Within the plot, however, there's also a fairly simple and logical answer to your question, laudine. Snape is a very gifted occlumens. He had to be in order for Dumbledore to send him to spy on Voldemort--who has been described as the most gifted legilimens alive--so the only living person with this information also has the ability to keep the information from Voldemort.

So if Harry or any of the others are captured and Voldemort uses legilimency on them, all he'll see is that they don't trust Snape because he betrayed them, so Voldemort's trust in Snape will be complete.

laudine,

Every time that Harry spoke to Dumbledore about his Potions Master, he said "Snape", and every time Dumbledore corrected him saying "Professor Snape". His attempts to make Harry respect Snape were in vain. How then could Dumbledore have made Harry trust Snape? That would have been too large a step.

Moreover, a sudden friendship between Harry and Snape would endanger Snape's cover, whereas hostility between them would help Snape's cover. Against the formidable Legilimency skils of Voldemort, a genuine hatred and contempt between Harry and Snape would disguise Snape's ultimate loyalty to Harry. Dumbledore had no doubt that Harry's and Snape's commitment to a common cause would ultimately be stronger than whatever bad feelings they might have towards each other.

So he went no further than pointing out that Harry should call Snape "Professor" and did not stress the point. As Albus-wan pointed out, Dumbledore was far less convinced of Harry's Occlumency skills than those of Severus Snape.

Albus-Wan and Bumblebee, this all makes complete sense to me. I agree that it had to be done by Jo to keep the plot going, for this is one of the reasons why this book is so good, the character and reasons of Severus Snape, which is/are always in the shadows and makes us discuss this in the first place. I think Dumbledore knows that Harry doesn't learn to see things when you tell him he has to di it, but when he learns it through his own experience. And I truly hope he will.

Are we off track now?

Just to comment about the Flitwick situation-Snape did know about the Death Eaters as Professor Flitwick had just told him. Snape had time to decide whether to proceed with Flitwick, to stun him, or to kill him. Snape had not just woken up, as they were stationed outside his office, not his bedroom. So, Flitwick came down there screaming about Death Eaters, he barged into Snape's office and explained frantically about the Death Eaters, Snape stunned him-went outside his office and found Luna and Hermione, to whom he did nothing save tell them to check on thier other Professor . . .

I will continue to maintain that Snape did know of Voldemort's plan to kill Dumbledore through Draco. Taking the Unbreakable Vow actually fits into the "Dumbledore/Snape" plan as well-they could have talked about the possibility for Snape to have to kill Dumbledore, then Snape agreed, but still saw a way out-then he was presented with this Unbreakable Vow, which solidifies his role in Dumbledore's death, having already known he would have to do it, this just gives it extra meat, so to speak.

I don't think that failing to teach Harry Occlumency had anything to do with failing Dumbledore's trust-it has to do with failing a task. As Dumbledore said, he had hoped that Snape could overcome his feelings about Harry's dad in order to do this, but that wasn't taking into account that Harry would be snooping into a memory expressly removed from Snape's mind. . . Even if Snape didn't tell Dumbledore (since Dumbledore was gone at that point), Lupin and Sirius DID know, so Dumbledore could have acted at that point as well. When I give my kids a task to do and they fail in it, it doesn't mean I trust them any less. . .it means they were unable to complete something I asked them to do for whatever reason.

As for his mind being more susceptible to Voldemort after the lessons, that too was explained. Harry was exhausted after each lesson with Snape, through mostly his own unwillingness to practice), and therefore his mind was more open. That was not Snape's doing.

Drat, that's all I have time for at the moment. . .

I do want to carry on on passerby's point. I don't see any proof in Snape's lack of loyality towards Dumbledore by failing the given task to teach Harry occlumency. For a lesson to succeed, that means for a student to understand and learn something, it always takes two - the teacher and the student. It is also Harry's fault that this didn't succeed. Both, Severus and Harry, are very stubborn and can't overcome their dislike for eachother, not even for the ''good cause'. But I don't see, why this should be seen as proof that Severus was unloyal to Dumbledore.

Passerby
Snape had just been told there were Death Eaters in the school, but he did not know anything about why, how, or even who.
Good catch on the office bit (BTW - do we actually know where his sleeping quarters are?).
I do not recall reading that Harry's exhaustion after practice made him more open, but if Snape is such a master, surely he would have known that would have been the case, and would have taken precautions?

Laudline
Trust, not loyalty. He was trusted to do a task and he failed, meaning the trust in his abilities was misplaced.


So time for a bit of summing up for my prosecution points

1) Snape has a history as a nasty and untrustworthy individual.
2) Snape's 'confession' to Bellatrix covers all his actions excellently(Excluding not killing Harry at the end which is covered by his statement regarding Voldy's orders).
3) Snape was overheard arguing with Dumbledore about his ongoing role.
4) Dumbledore's trust - the main point in support of the defence's collaboration theory - has been shown to have been misplaced several times before. Also that Dumbledore's statement that when he makes mistakes, they are huge, supports the theory that trusting Snape was a mistake.
5) Snape has a history of being ruled by his 'heart' and not his 'head'.
6) JKR has previously let us believe, or expect, something, right the way through a book only to 'trick' us at the end with a surprise (I am proposing evil Snape + Harry actually got it right was the surprise twist when we were all expecting Snape to come out relatively 'clean' - as he has previously).

There is only one really big weakness that I can see that requires speculation - Dumbledore's pleading just before his death. It is so much out of character and we have to guess at it's meaning.

Some quick points of rebuttal

Arrghh I lost my post!

Response to Rebuttal

Ooh, this thread has been quiet for a while...

Just a thought...I'm not sure if anyone's seen that thread in the main forum about the possibility of Snape knowing that Wormtail was the Secret Keeper...but if he did, then he would know that Sirius was innocent and therefore was quite happy to let an innocent man have his soul sucked out.

Any thoughts from anyone about this? Do you think Snape knew Sirius was innocent all along? If he did, what does that say for his character? Does that make him more or less likely to have been genuinely evil when he killed Dumbledore?

I'm really not sure about this one myself, so I'm open to possibilities

Wait a minute - how would Snape know? Sirius said that the Potters changed to Pettigrew at the last minute. Dumbledore might have known, but even Lupin, a fellow Marauder, didn't. It's in PoA in the Shrieking Shack scene. Sirius didn't tell Lupin because he thought Lupin was the spy. Snape only turned good after the Potter's death, so he wasn't in on this whole Secret Keeper thing. So if Lupin didn't know, why would Snape be told of this by Dumbledore years later, when it (apparently) didn't matter any more?

Also, supposing Dumbledore knew this change had taken place, why would he tell Snape this, but not McGonagall. Remember the conversation Harry overheard in the Three Broomsticks? It was McGonagall who said that Sirius had been the Secret Keeper. No-one knew Sirius was innocent before that night in the Shrieking Shack. Snape was knocked out during the explanation, so he didn't hear it then.

I believe Snape is good, but solely for emotional reasons. I believe just because Dumbledore did - that's the bottom line for me. If Dumbledore had made a mistake, the greatest difference between the Good side and the Evil side would be annihilated, destroyed - trust .

Voldemort believes that there is no good and evil, there is only power, and those too weak to seek it. He has no friends and needs none. Dumbledore naturally believed the opposite - true greatness lies not in power, but in love and friendship. And he did not just believe it - he personified it.

Love, trust, friendship, loyalty - if this has been Dumbledore's downfall, what hope can there possibly be for Good to prevail? And that is all I cling to, in life and its stories - that Good will ultimately prevail...

Sorry, I know this is not concrete evidence, but in my opinion there is none to prove either side. Jk has cunningly placed the evidence in such a way that both sides can still be argued. Snape's story will be very diminished if the mystery is not held up until the last minute.

Oh, excellent reply! Don't get me wrong, I'm a Snape-lover through and through and I really believe that he is good for all the reasons that you've said. I also strongly agree that a lot of the moral message behind the books will be destroyed if Dumbledore's faith proved wrong and I'll seriously have a reduction in respect for JKR's ability as a writer. I've argued before that it could be said that we should feel sorry for Dumbledore for making 'emotional mistakes', but I just can't think like that...his mistake is inexcusable and far from being pitied, he should be villified for putting so many lives in danger based solely on his faith.

I'm just considering the possibility that perhaps Snape did know, but I suppose, on closer inspection, it doesn't seem very likely that he did. How would he, if the changes were made last minute? The only way he could know the truth would be if he happened to be with Voldemort when Pettigrew spilled the beans. We only have his word for it that he turned before the Potters died. If he had been with Voldemort, then he would have known.

Of course, if he did know, then he wouldn't have let on to Dumbledore because it would have shown his duplicity. By giving Sirius to the Dementors, he would have killed two birds with one stone - revenge for boyhood traumas as well as proving that he couldn't possibly have known who the real Secret Keeper was because he had already left Voldemort by then....

Or had he? I'm talking myself back into him being evil here...

Oh, Severus....please, no....

I've got another titbit to add to Snape's defence. It might look inconsequential, but I like to think it means something - well, it's as concrete as evidence on this subject goes.

Ok, in Spinner's End Bellatrix asks Snape why he didn't help Quirrell get the Philosopher's Stone in Harry's first year. Snape's answer is significant I think. He claims that he didn't know that Quirrell was in league with Voldemort, he only saw Quirrell's foolish attempts to get the Stone for himself. He doesn't say something in the line of not wanting to give himself away to Albus Dumbledore, which he would have undoubtedly done if he had helped Quirrell. He doesn't argue that he was trying to protect his position as spy. He claims ignorance.

But he wasn't ignorant at all. He confronted Quirrell in the woods and warned him that he wouldn't want him (Snape) as his enemy. He said that he knew what Quirrell was up to. "We'll have another little chat soon, when you've had time to think things over and decided where your loyalties lie." - Philospher's Stone, Chptr: Nicolas Flamel. This is proof that Snape knew that Quirrell had other loyalties than to Dumbledore. Who else than to Voldemort?

So Snape is blatantly lying to Bellatrix - he did know. Since the possibility of Bellatrix repeating this conversation to the Dark Lord or letting something slip is real enough, I believe Snape is telling her exactly what he told Voldemort. If he can therefore lie to Voldemort about something and does, which is as a big a risk as you can take, he won't be doing it for kicks - he must really be on Dumbledore's side! Yayyy!

Oh, yay!! I love you, Capricorn!!

You're right! You're absolutely right!! He did say that, didn't he? And exactly - who could Quirrel be loyal to other than either Dumbledore or Voldemort? Snape was obviously suspicious of Quirrel all along. Claiming ignorance is the only thing he really could have done because to say he was protecting his position of spy would be implausible when he also said that he believed Voldemort finished.

Anyway, he's supposedly brilliant at the Dark Arts - wouldn't he have recognised the signs of 'possession' in Quirrel? I seem to recall his turban smelling strange. If he suspected it was Voldemort, he would have helped him if he'd been truly evil - but he didn't. I can't believe that he didn't know, he's not stupid. So by claiming he didn't know, he must be lying.

Yay!! Faith in Severus is restored!!

Interesting reasoning Capricorn, but there is a slight flaw in it.

If Snape knew Quirrel was in league with Voldemort, and Snape was truly loyal to Dumbledore, then Dumbledore would have known.

Can anyone possibly believe Dumbledore would have let a known ally of Voldemort into the school, let alone help in the defence of the very artefact Voldemort was desperate to obtain?

Obviously Snape did not know that Quirrel was helping Voldemort. His comments must have been refering to his belief in Quirrel's apparent greed as oppossed to loyalty to Dumbledore (or something more sinister?)

Either that or Snape was withholding important information from Dumbledore, which undermines the defence's arguments.

*sigh* You have got a point. But ok, I'll try my best for Snape! Maybe Snape did try to tell Dumbledore, but Dumbledore pretended not to believe him, like he did to Harry with the Malfoy story. Maybe Dumbledore wanted Harry to face this, once he found out that he, Ron and Hermione had found out about the stone already. Remember he sent Harry back his Invisiblity Cloak - "just in case."

Snape may not have proof, only suspicions and he couldn't 'convince' Dumbledore. Also, why would Snape try to save Harry's life in the Quidditch game.

Whoa, hold on! I've just realised something. What happens when one wizard saves another wizard's life? They form a bond, right? So James saves Snape's life, but then Snape gives Voldemort the crucial information about the prophecy which leads him to the Potters. So Snape unintentionally gives James away. But the bond still remains - even worse, it intensifies because Snape is now doubly indebted! He is binded by ancient magic to make it up to Harry, James's son - twice. So this incredible debt drives him into Dumbledore's arms - the wizard who undertsands this sort of magic best. This powerful magic is Dumbledore's ironclad reason for believing in Snape.

Snape tries to lessen his debt by saving Harry during the Quidditch match, but the final debt is yet to be paid out. Harry now has a bond with the three wizards he hates most - Voldemort (because his mother died to protect him), Pettigrew and Snape... This is the power the Dark Lord knows not - the ancient bond that forms when a wizards saves another's life. Harry has also saved Mr Weasley, Ginny and Ron - three of the people he loves most. That makes six in all. Voldemort has six horcruxes and his body. So instead of horcruxes, Harry has the bond of love that protects him! The exact opposite.

So Snape is an intricate part of this complex magical situation - I believe for the good. What do you think?

I think I got lost after the first few twists!

To accept that Dumbledore would willingly allow Harry to face Voldemort or his minnion, you would have to also accept that Dumbledore was willing to gamble Voldemort's obtaining the stone and returning to power; an unlikely scenario.

Dumbledore did not disbelieve Harry, he apparently thought he had it covered (ie he thought Malfoy would not be able to achieve his goals, had OotP people in patrols too and believed [rightly] that he could appeal to Malfoy's 'better' side). Is it then believable that he would not take Snape's warnings about Quirrell seriously when Snape was already a trusted professor? More acceptable is that Snape gave no such warnings.

This bond for saving a wizard's life is a bit of a mystery. We have not yet seen any indication that the bond has any external affect or visible influence. That makes me suspect that Dumbledore was talking about an emotional bond (or internal debt) rather than a magical effect; more metaphorical than actual.

Snape's actions regarding Harry could stem from the bond, but are more likely explained by his unwillingness to do (or fail to do) anything that might lessen Dumbledore's trust - the only thing keeping him out of prison:
"...but kill him, or allow him to be killed in front of me? I would have been a fool to risk it with Dumbledore close at hand" -Snape, HPB Spinners End.
So Snape believed he had to be seen to protect Harry, at least when Dumbledore was around, and could not risk DD suspecting that he allowed Harry to be killed.

This is the thinking of someone with an overblown belief in his own abilities or other's opinions of his abilities; a typical Slytherin ego (just like Voldemort).

Nobody could possibly have faulted Snape if Harry had died in the Quidditch match, especially since there were others there that could have saved him, yet Snape would like to think people would have suspected him of been able to save Harry, and chose not to.

Snape has shown he is often ruled by his emotions and ego. Saving Harry is another instance where his ego ruled him.

Ok, I hear what you're saying Bajab. I'll work on my theory and come back, but for now I have a few comments.

Oh dear, dear, dear...I'm afraid I'm finding myself nodding along with bajab's posts here, and I really don't want to... It's true, these Slytherin tendancies of Snape...but I'm trying very hard not to hold them against him because Slughorn is Slytherin too, and although he certainly has his faults, he's not a bad person.

None the less, I can't argue with bajab's logic that Snape may very well have been worried about everyone asking him why he doesn't make an effort to save Harry - surely someone so versed in the Dark Arts would recognise a curse when he saw one?

But the thing that most got to me really was that Malfoy could keep Snape out of his mind. Rather worrying that - something I haven't considered before. But then again, that only argues to Snape's gift at Occlumancy - has it ever been said that he's a good Legilimens? I don't the two necessarily go hand in hand, do they?

Besides, I like to think that immediate, reactionary responses come from inate feelings and morals - what comes naturally, so to speak. In other words, Snape's first reaction could have been to save Harry in PS...not necessarily with any thought processes occuring before hand. The trouble is that we're assigning all sorts of reasoning to Snape's behaviour, but we don't really know what his motivations are all all. Everything is an assumption - all we really have to go on are his actions themselves - whatever his motivation, he has saved Harry numerous times.

I was reading OotP to my nephew last night, and one thing I noticed was the lengths JKR went to to keep what Snape was doing for the Order very secretive. Of course, everyone was very surprised and upset and it came out that Snape had killed Dumbledore, which means that if there was a plan, then the Order didn't know about it...so what exactly do *they* think that Snape was doing? No one said in HBP, did they? So if the Order didn't know, either it was something horrendously secret so that Dumbledore didn't trust anyone else with it, or Snape was truly betraying them all.

I really hope the former is the case - I just think that it ruins the whole message of the books otherwise.

Can I just ask...it's not really too off topic...if Snape is really evil and all these arguments turn out to be moot, what will you think of the series as a whole? Do you think it negates the message of the books? Or do you think that there's some deeper message that we're all not getting? Or maybe just I'm not getting...

Mmm...yeah, I can see both your points. I would be very disappointed, I can't deny that, but I would have to see how it was done before I cast judgement, I think. If there was reason to it all, for example, which brings me to my next point...

I was over at the Lexicon tonight, checking out a fact or two for something else I was posting, and I followed a link to an interview that JKR gave a while back - and it is an audio clip, so it's definitely from JKR herself

In response to the question 'Has Snape ever fallen in love', after a bit of joking, she basically said that she couldn't answer that because it would give too much away about book 7. I know I've quoted that before, and I've always been resistent to the idea that Snape possibly loved Lily, but after hearing that, and reading a lot of the argument made for it, I'm beginning to think that I may have been a bit hasty in disregarding it.

I'm beginning to see it like this - and bear with me, I am bringing it back on topic soon...

Snape and Lily are in the same Potions class....Lily is a nice person and feels kind of sorry for Snape...she helps him out in classes, they work together, maybe even develop a couple of spells together. Snape misreads Lily's kindness as feelings for him, and eventually, he comes to believe himself in love with her. But Lily is all over James - who Snape hates. When he realises he'll never have Lily, his hatred increases a hundred fold. I think his worst memory wasn't so much what Sirius and James did to him - I think he's thicker skinned than that - I think it was more to do with Lily's treatment of him. He was hurt, so he lashed out and was surprised and doubly hurt when she lashed right back.

But I think his feelings may have remained, but love can very quickly turn to hate (or something like it) when feelings like that get stamped on. Maybe that's what drove him to join the DE's, but, like Regulus, he got in over his head and when he saw the lengths that LV was prepared to go through, he got rattled. He knew what LV was planning and told Dumbledore, but it was too late to save Lily and I think he's probably carried that guilt around with him for all these years. Maybe that's why his feelings towards Harry are so complicated - he sees Lily within him, but he also sees James...a very confusing thing to be left with.

If we take all this to be a fair approximation of what happened, then everything suddenly makes sense - not just in the books, but in JKR's interview too. Which brings us, in a very roundabout way, to the question of Snape's guilt.

If Snape is capable of feeling these things, surely he can't be all bad? And if his guilt and remorse was a result of these feelings, then I think they could be far stronger than we give them credit for. It's possible that Dumbledore is the only person in the entire world who knows how Snape felt and the real reasons why he betrayed Voldemort.

Remember that Dumbledore seemed very reluctant to tell Harry the whole truth about Snape - he always skirted the issue. Maybe because he didn't think it was necessary for Harry to know. It wouldn't make any difference to him now - not to what he has to do. But it might make him think differently about Snape, and if anyone else suspected that Snape wasn't 100% on Voldemort's side, then his position would be compromised and Dumbeldore's death would have been for nothing.

This all kind of made sense to me when it occured...not sure that it does to anyone else...

In essence, I'm citing Snape's true morality and his possible feelings for Lily as evidence to the integrity of his character.

Yes, I'm convinced you're right! Especially if that's what JK said...

I still wouldn't call myself a Severus/Lily shipper, because I believe she truly loved James, but I've always liked the idea of Snape being in love with her. That would explain why he overreacted and called her a mud-blood. Illogical, yeah, but the most obvious thing to have done, eh?

And yes, of course it would depend on how things developed. Snape's on thin ice with me already, he doesn't want to go doing some more stupid things... I hope his calculating and disciplined mind that I respect so much keeps him from it.

I must confess that I'm almost more interested in his fate than I am in Harry's. Shameful, I know, but what can I do?

(Just a question: As far as concrete evidence goes, I guess the defence is a bit reluctant, since the law is blind, but the story isn't? Not sure, but the cold hard facts do not paint a pretty picture if interpreted in such an unemotional way... Where would this leave the prosecution, the defense and the trial as a whole?)

Well, after a lot of procrastination on posting, I'd like to enter the debat on the side of the prosecution with a few replys to some of the other posters.

Hmmm...prosecution...defense...ak...I just do not know. I have absolutely no idea whether Snape is going to turn out to be 'good after all' in the seventh book.

I have reasons for wanting him to be evil and vice versa. If Snape does turn out to be a filthy Death Eater through and through this will make it much easier for me to hate him, which I really want to do, however, heres the rub, I believe Snape is an excellent character because he challanges the reader; you want to hate him because of the way he treats Harry but then he goes and does something really annoying like save Harrys life making it much more difficult to simply hate him (like u can hate a character such as Voldemort). As Sirius tells Harry the world is not divided into good people and Death Eaters. If he does turn out to be simply 'evil' in the final book his character will lose its complexity and ability to challenge the reader. I don't know about you but I like books I read to make me think, mess with my accepted views, especially now I'm a bit older; I want to be challenged, not told a nice fairytale where everythings black and white; that's not real life. So from this I guess I'm with the defence.

I also have to agree with Capricorn that if Dumbledores trust really was misplaced this will detract from the books and their message (for me anyway). Dumbledore made mistakes but I still had the most respect for him out of any of the characters, I'll feel prety crap if my favourite character turns out to be a total dunderhead.

So, in conclusion, I guess the superficial part of me is for the prosecution; 'I always hated that Snape and look; I was right, he's as evil as insert something really evil'. The slightly more mature part of me is, unfortunately, for the defence as it can see the larger ramifications of Snape being on Voldemorts side (mainly literary as opposed to what actually happens in the story).

Sorry if that was a bit off topic; it was pretty much just my PoV as opposed to concrete evidence but it took me ages to write so I've got to post it!

My answer to that is this: Book7 is the last book. So far, evil has had free reign since Voldemort came back. It is finally time for Harry to step up to the challenge and let good conquer evil.

If the pattern of 4,5 and 6 are what we should be going with, Good has no chance. We wanted Cedric, Sirius and Dumbledore to survive 4,5 and 6 because they were good guys. We want Harry to survive 7, but even more, we want Good to win. Does that mean Harry and the good side are doomed? We want Snape to be good in the same way. If Harry and Good aren't necessarily doomed, why would Snape (and with him, Dumbledore's trust) be?

This being the last book, it means that evil has to stop, the pattern of destruction (and with it our shattered hopes) must be broken. In Harry's eyes Snape has always been evil. Shouldn't this pattern be broken too? This rests heavily on the themes of love, friendship and the fact that prejudice should be condemned. These themes in turn rest heavily on mankind's almost inextinguishable hope that good will ultimately prevail.

If Snape is evil but Good prevails, it will feel incongruous to me. His story symbolises the fight a man can fight against the worst animosity and prejudice. If he wins (by remaining good), there is hope for mankind. If he doesn't, not even Harry conquering Voldemort could extinguish the bitter after-taste this talented man's failure would leave.

More emotional twaddle, can't seem to escape it - just goes to show how powerful this character is...

First off, I'm going to go along with passerby on what it would do to the books if Snape does end up being guilty. See, if Harry's prejudice against Snape ends up being justified, it strongly contradicts one of the major themes of the book.

JKR has said on several occasions that the plot of these books has a lot to do with his coming of age. We are watching him grow throughout the series. To me, he hasn't come of age until he has learned to cast off misconceptions that are based on prejudice. This is what Dumbledore seemed to have correctly done in almost every aspect of life, and it's one of the things that made him a strong character--someone we trust. If Snape ends up being evil, not only does it rob Dumbledore of one of his greatest virtues, it deprives Harry of the opportunity to learn this lesson as he should.

Next:

Darth Vadar betrayed and murdered his guide and mentor (ObiWan) as well as his whole belief system and civilization, and even killed untold numbers of people (including children), but he redeemed himself by giving his own life to save the hero. His betrayal was far greater, but he still managed to become 'good' again and earned Luke's forgiveness. It is not the act that redeems, but the choice to act in that way.

Also, whether you forgive him or not, if the main characters does, then he is redeemed.

Ooh, powerful posts there, guys.

Yes, I can see the Darth Vader connection - which made for some mighty good cinema, but I have to agree with Sam here in that one act of good can't undo the near-genocide that Vader committed before. Nothing could. Some things just aren't forgivable.

However, I argue that if Dumbledore was dying anyway, if he wanted to die by a method of his own choosing, then that doesn't make Snape anywhere near as cold or evil as Vader was. It makes him a tortured man who did what he had to do and he will probably punish himself far more than wizarding society ever could.

I'll refrain from making comments about how Vader's brand of evil grew from a powerful, desperate, passionate yet terrible love for Padme...and what this could say about where Snape's evil comes from, because I don't think there are too many supporters here for the Lily theory...

So, if Snape never really did anything as evil as we believe he did, then that redemption isn't quite what I think JKR wants it to mean. By redemptive pattern, she could simply mean that Harry has always believed Snape to be evil, but then he proves himself not to be. Maybe, at the end, we'll discover that Dumbledore planned his own death and forced Snape to take that action and through his own eventual sacrifice will prove irrefutably that his heart always was with the Order and Dumbledore. Wouldn't that make for a redemption in Harry's eyes? Merely turning Vader at the end wouldn't do that...but showing how he never really committed the 'crime' in the first place would. With a little self sacrifice for good measure.

And I also agree with Sam when he says that it would go against the message of the books. Harry certainly is prejudiced. I would never argue that he isn't growing up, because he certainly is - for all the reasons bajab mentioned - but there are some fundamental areas that he still needs to work on, and not jumping to conclusions is one of them. Hermione is his temperance in this regard, I think...in a lot of ways, both Ron and Hermione are like alternate parts of his ego...she is always telling him not to draw conclusions, to consider the evidence rather than his own feelings. Justified though they may be. After all, we can't deny that Harry hates Snape because of the way he treated Lupin, the way he spoke to Sirius, the way he's belittled him and his friends...that's who Snape is. He's horrible to everyone, not just Harry. He's a guy with serious issues, but that doesn't make him evil. That's what Harry needs to get over. He is prejudiced towards Snape and obviously Snape didn't do himself any favours by killing Dumbledore. But that prejudice is blinding Harry to the possibility that Snape is acting out his part in a much larger plan - perhaps it's even vital that Harry doesn't trust Snape. Harry's mind is very easy to get into, don't forget. If LV detected anything there other than the very blackest of hatred for Snape, he would no longer trust him, could kill him, and then who would Harry have to help him?

No one gets there alone. Three underage kids are just no match for the DE's. They're not Superman...Supermen...whatever... It wouldn't be realistic or believable in the context of the overall message of the books. If Voldemort is that easy to defeat, why can't anyone do it? If that's all it takes is pluck, courage and luck? No, Harry has something that no one else has, definitely. But he needs help to find it. There is no one else who can do that now, no one else who was Dumbledore's confident.

Except Snape.

One more thing...I posted this in the main forums too, but I wanted to bring it up here too...

One other thing that struck me as I was reading OotP last night - the Order knew that Voldemort was after the Prophecy. How else could they possibly know about that if Snape hadn't told them? He's the only one who could have - yet why would he, if he was truly loyal to Voldemort? He could have lied to Dumbledore...said that Voldemort didn't trust him enough yet. Or he could have fed misinformation - that Voldemort was after something else. If anything had gone wrong later, he could simply have claimed that he didn't know and that LV obviously didn't trust him enough. He's done so much to help the Order in that respect, but what has he done to make it difficult for them? Nothing. What has he done to help Voldemort? Again, nothing...he can't tell them the location of the Order, we only have his word for it that he helped in the murder of Emmeline Vance and we don't know the full circumstances of that.

Why would he have told the Order, forewarned them, that LV was after the Prophecy? Moreover, if he was really weakening Harry's mind to make it easier for LV to get in there to manipulate him, wasn't he taking a huge risk that Harry would guess what LV was up to and tell Dumbledore? Yes, we all know he was banking on his 'playing the hero', but doesn't that still seem like such a huge risk to take?

It makes more sense that he really was trying to teach Harry Occlumancy, but his own hatred and loathing was something that he just couldn't overcome and in that respect, Dumbledore was wrong to ask him to help Harry and even Dumbledore admits that. But even through all that, he still trusts Snape.

It could very well be because he made an Unbreakable Vow too, but personally, I'd rather it be for an emotional reason...something that would enhance character rather than being a magical chain restricting his actions, you know?

I just don't understand why Snape would have told the Order about the Prophecy, knowing what we know now that it was him who overheard it in the first place, when he could just as easily have lied.

Yes, you could argue that Dumbledore would have known he was lying, but you can't argue that without negating your own arguments - if Snape is capable of hiding things from Dumbledore without him knowing, then he could very easily have lied about the Prophecy and why Voldemort was after it. But he didn't.

I have to say that the above made for some fascinating reading. And I, for one, still firmly believe that Snape's feelings for Lilly, and the way which they were spurned, will have had a crucial role in forging his persona.

As redemptions go, seeing Severus Snape come out of the series as a hero when everyone has writte him off as a villain would certianly be satisfying. And as Louise points out it would present Harry with a valuable lesson in not jumping to conclusions...

What remains to be seen is whether Snape's actions and/or decisions, those that "redeem" him, will be spur of the moment, last ditch efforts or if they have been ongoing throughout the series. The former would be akin to Vader's last minute decision, the latter being a much more palatable outcome, as far as fitting it into the series goes at least...

What if Snape is not the one to be redeemed, but rather is the pivotal character in someone else's redemption? I'm still ensconced in the "Snape is good" camp, but what if...

I have to dispute the redemptive pattern nature of Snape.

In book one, Snape certainly was suspected by Harry incorrectly (although as pointed out, he did know something was going on with Quirrell)

In book two he wasn't really accused or 'redeemed'.

In book three Snape was exactly what Harry thought he was. He was willing to turn his back on the possibility of Sirius's innocence in order to get revenge (either that or was purposely helping Wormtail to escape) - even after DD gave his support for Harry's story. Did this go against the message of the books, or did it just show that Snape was as mean and nasty as his previous actions indicated (and Harry believed)?

In book four he was once again not really a suspect, although it was here that we found Snape really had once gone bad.
In book five he contributed to Sirius's demise with his baiting, although he was cleared of actual wrong doing by DD (A lot of questions regarding his actions and motives remain.)

And the jury is still out on book six.

So in only one of the books was he actually ever actually really 'redeemed'; in the rest of them he was just plain nasty and in at least one he was quite bad (trying to get Sirius executed without at least listening to Lupin & co qualifies as being bad to me).

I can't see how Snape turning bad once more could possibly go against the 'message of the books', which has not been clearly defined anyway, especially if going bad leads to his downfall, or coming back to the good leads to his redemption.

Sorry bajab, I don't think my answer will be very satisfactory . Everything you say has a lot of merit - too much for comfort actually. The only problem I have with Snape being traitor to Dumbledore at the moment is this:

Dumbledore trusted him. The message of the books isn't about Snape needing redemption - like you said, there is still no hard evidence that he deserves it. If he were a traitor, I couldn't care less about redemption. Dumbledore seems to have trusted him based on nothing but trust. That is exactly it. Dumbledore was the greatest wizard ever known by his contemporaries. His greatness was not just due to his brilliance and accomplishment. What really made him great was the incredible love and positive energy that guided his choices. Everything Dumbledore ever did was fueled by his unselfish love for his fellow creatures. If this is flawed, if love doesn't conquer all, I would be very sad indeed. Dumbledore's love and trust was tested to the fullest with Snape, but he chose to trust him. Dumbledore isn't a fool - he definitely didn't trust Tom Riddle, so he did't give his trust to undeserving people. If Snape is a traitor, it would seem as if he did give his trust too freely. The message - don't trust people too easily, especially if it looks to the world as if they are untrustworthy. Judge a book by its cover!

Harry, in comparison with Hermione, is quick to jump to conclusions. Ron is even worse - him jumping to conclusions isn't restricted to Snape, nor is he an intellectual and emotional giant. I love Ron, but because he is a good friend, brave, fun and loyal. You wouldn't necessarily leave saving mankind up to him. Interestingly, the only time Hermione did something distrustful (tell McGonagall about Harry's broom becuase she didn't trust where it came from), Harry and Ron were right and she was wrong. Hermione is usually very good at trusting the right people. She never told anyone about Lupin being a werewolf, and she turned out right about him. She isn't a fool though - she made sure the DA members would regret betraying her trust.

I trust her judgement (take note - not her, but her judgement) more than Harry and Ron's. She has always trusted Dumbledore - and at the same time, his trust in Snape. If the two boys turn out right about Snape and she is wrong, the message would be - jump to conclusions. You are probably seeing the whole picture, so don't worry about trying to understand people's true feelings or what passes between others.

I don't know - the message of trust grows with every piece of evidence against Snape. The harder it is to believe in him, the more valuable trust becomes -> the stronger the message. Sounds silly, but it comes down to how much you trust Dumbledore. With your life? If your life depended on Dumbledore's trust in Snape's loyalty? Harry is 'Dumbledore's man through and through' - did he trust Dumbledore with his life, then, if he didn't trust his judgement?