and prior to that:

Sorry for quoting so much text, but I wanted to point out that Snape did, in fact, help the Order out as much as he could from the position he was in at the time. He even "worried." (Thought that may be Dumbledore's spin on it.) We have definate evidence that Snape has once again saved Harry from the clutches of Voldemort.

Now then, I'd like to call attention to the past where Harry has been definately against Severus Snape. He accused him of wanting the Philosopher's Stone and was proven wrong. He accused Snape of trying to knock him off his broom: Turned out to be Quirrel and Snape was uttering the countercurse. He accused Snape of putting his name in the Goblet of Fire, again wrong. My point here, is that based on past evidence of Snape's innocence in regards to what Harry has believed. . . he is not as guilty of being a Death Eater now as Harry would like to believe.

It's hard to understand Snape as his treatment of Harry and statements are often juxtaposed with his good deeds and actions.
He is often at odds with what we'd like to think we know about him.

One other thing I'd like to address:

Of course he fled quickly! He'd just killed Dumbledore . . .I don't think he'd want to stick around and have a scenerio of "shoot first, ask questions later."

I think I'll stop it there for now.

EDIT: heheh . . . pixy, you posted just as I was trying to, so I missed yours. (the word you're looking for is euthanize.) Unfortunately, I'm not sure that Dumbledore's pre-awareness of his demise would help our dear client . . . since, it could be argued that he should have attempted suicide or seek some other means of termination. However pre-meditated it is, Snape "pulled the trigger" so to speak.

So it is the defense's position that Snape did everything that he could to help Harry on the night of Harry's romp in the Ministry in OotP. Yet, Harry and co. had time to fly (by thestral) all the way from Hogwarts in Northern England to London, leisurely explore the DoM, and engage in battle with DE's before the cavalry finally arrived. How long exactly did it take for Snape to "become worried" when Harry hadn't returned from the forest. Would you say that it was the third hour after Harry had first entered the forest or the fourth?

<"OBJECTION! Sarcasm!" screams the defense. "Sustained," says the judge.>

Withdrawn. (I think I made my point.)

And we'd like proof that you are absolutely certain that they hadn't set something up before hand. (I don't think either side can get this proof . . .)

Bajab, I think that, even though I see you're passionate about your view, it is still speculative argument. We aren't shown what Snape's actions for the Order were (because the books focus mainly on Harry and his PoV, and we were shown two chapters outside of this PoV to influence our perceptions on two people).

As far as the murder meaning two life sentences in Azkaban-I do believe that extenuating circumstances often sway sentencing. So, it DOES matter if it were a premeditated act of supreme evil, or an agreed upon arrangement.

Also, in regards to an earlier comment on the timing of Snape's alert to the Order in OotP. I think an apropo question would actually be: Why did the Order fail to act when Snape first contacted Sirius to check to see where he was? Were they not concerned that Harry had had a vision where Sirius was captured? Were they not remembering that Harry does tend to have a "saving people thing?" Why did they not check at the MoM as soon as Snape told them the situation regarding Harry telling him that Snuffles had been taken? I don't think the blame on the late arrival of the Order can be totally, if at all, laid at Snape's feet.

Which means there is no proof that his information was valuable, as opposed to the proof, in his own words, of his complicity in the death of Emmeline Vance.

All of our accusations and defense are speculation, except where it is written in the books.

As to why did the order act the way that it did, or how Harry feels about Snape, they are not on trial here, Snape is. The only time anybody else's actions or comments might be relevant are as examples of how people in HP universe act, or where their perceptions might be affected.

No matter how much Harry hates Snape, does anybody dispute that JKR reported what Harry saw accurately?

No matter how incompetant the Order might be, does that absolve Snape of his own tardy actions?

But, in partial answer to the questions posted by Passerby, we do not know exactly what Snape told them about Harry's vision. If Sirius's protectiveness of Harry is taken into account, it is certain he would have gone to Hogwarts as soon as he heard Harry was a captive of Umbridge. Is it safe to then assume that Snape did not in fact tell them exactly what was going on?

It can not be proven as fact, despite Dumbledore's words quoted earlier, but it sounds like Snape did not explain everything about Harry's vision and his predicament until after Umbridge had taken Harry into the forrest for so long that Snape had 'become worried'. The order may not have acted on Snapes initial report because Snape did not give them any information to indicate Harry was in any sort of trouble. That explanation of the Order's actions fits the facts.

Actually, taking into account the point of view of the story, it might be an inaccurate accounting of what actually happened, because we are seeing it through Harry's eyes, feeling Harry's emotions as the action happens. Whether or not the information is accurate, we are seeing it through a skewed perception of Snape.

I'd also like to point out, as conclusive fact, of something that Severus Snape did do for the Order during the encounter with Umbridge in OotP (as quoted earlier). He gave Harry false Veritaserum when Umbridge was trying to assertain the whereabouts of Sirius Black. Now why, I ask you, would Severus withhold information to the whereabouts of his arch-enemy if he were not working for the Order?

Now there is a debateable idea. He told Dumbledore that he gave her false Veritaserum, but since Harry did not take it, we do not know this for a fact.

But, even if it were true, one reason was that he may have been deeply involved in the plot to lure Harry to the MoM. If Sirius were captured before that happened, there would be no reason for Harry to go to the MoM.

In fact, if Snape DID give her false Veriataserum, it would be out of character for him, since he has displayed just how far he was willing to go to have Black executed.

Can this be more evidence of his involvement?

I am going to take a break for a while now and let other people get a few posts in

I argue that the use of the term "supreme act of evil" may inappropriately bias any jury against the defendant. It may turn out that Snape, in killing Dumbledore, is guilty of nothing less than a supreme act of selflessness and good.

Earlier, bajab argued against Snape's character by citing his actions in PoA. I concede that his decisions were made hastily and reflect prejudice against a man that has since been proved to be innocent, but we do not know that Snape was acting out of vengeance. It is possible that Snape believed he was in a better position to judge Sirius's character and the likelihood that Sirius would, in fact, betray the Potters. Who would know Sirius's darker side better than Snape, who was the victim of Sirius's darkest pranks? Wouldn't someone with Snape's exposure to Sirius Black find it very easy to believe he would become a Death Eater? Sirius's lineage fits perfectly into the ranks of the DEs. So his judgment was flawed, but we do not know that it represents vengeful motivation.

Bajab also asserted that Snape could not have known there were non-DE witnesses present. Again, we do not know what knowledge Snape had. It is entirely possible that Dumbledore assured Snape that if he was required to kill him, Dumbledore would do everything possible to make sure that a witness was present.

Then again, even Snape believed the only witnesses to the killing of Albus Dumbledore were people loyal to Voldemort, this does not provide any evidence that he was betraying Dumbledore. If Dumbledore had ordered Snape to kill him, the only people who would need to see him do it are those loyal to Voldemort. What the Order believes about Dumbledore's death is not nearly as important as what Voldemort and his DEs believe.

In fact, under the theory that Snape and Dumbledore were conspiring, it would actually be more useful if only Death Eaters witnessed the killing. If the Order somehow doubted that Snape did it, he might still be able to pass on useful information.

In response to another of bajab's accusations of Snape being a known turncoat, yes, we know he's a turncoat. While this may suggest it is within his character to switch sides when it seems convenient to him, it raises a more important concern which has already been hinted--why did Snape come over to Dumbledore's side? Why did Dumbledore trust Snape?

This brings me back to my thoughts in my original post in this thread. I believe that JKR has not provided the concrete reason for why Dumbledore trusts Snape, and I believe she has purposefully ommitted this reason. Dumbledore trusted Snape completely, and I believe if the reason he trusted Snape were revealed we would not be having this debate, and this is precisely the reason the information has been withheld.

Passerby was right to say, "we were shown two chapters outside of this PoV to influence our perceptions on two people". JKR is manipulating us, and if we would like to know the truth, we must begin to think like her.

My final argument for this post is in response to Droobles. She was perceptive in noting that Snape's face was filled with hatred and revulsion. I encourage her and all others eager to pass judgment on Snape to think about where else they had seen such hatred and revulsion just prior to Dumbledore's death.

We saw that hatred and revulsion within Harry himself. Harry, under Dumbledore's orders, forced the beloved headmaster to drink a potion even though Dumbledore then pleaded for him not to force him to drink anymore of it...and Harry hated himself for it. This parallelism actually serves better as evidence that Snape was following Dumbledore's orders than that Snape was betraying him.

I do not believe this is a debateable idea. He told Dumbledore this while not knowing that Harry had not taken the potion. He would have nothing to gain by lying here. Snape was not privy to the information that Harry dumped his tea into a plant, so Snape was initiating the idea of fake Veritaserum as he told it to Dumbledore.

I agree whole-heartedly here. It is in JKR's history to mislead her audience in order to make a more dramatic showing of what the facts are.

Thank you, Albus, for pointing this out. I think that this is an excellent parallel into the inner-turmoil for the same situation as felt by two vastly different characters. In short, neither of them wanted to harm Dumbledore.

I think this is an excellent point. Perhaps Snape only believed that DE saw him kill Dumbledore. But wouldn't it have made Snape wonder why all the sudden Harry was trying to hurt him? All along Harry had been told that Snape was good. So Snape should've thought that it was peculiar for Harry to be trying to hex him if he was supposed to be trusting Snape. Again, Snape didn't know Harry was there. I'm just wondering...

Well, I would like to say in argument to this...that I don't have an argument for this. Well done post, Albus-wan.

Now there is a difference in murder and defense. In the real world, that would be the soliders duity and his job. In the wizarding world, there are different spells for self defense and murder. For the wizard that cast the AK curse is used to have the intent of killing someone. And you have to have feelings behind it or it won't work. If someone is to attack you, you would block the spell and not try to kill them all the time. There is a very big difference between detonating explosives and sending a killing curse towards someone.

I'll go against this therory. Snape had respect for Dumbledore though. I think everyone respected Dumbledore, even Voldemort. For instance, if Harry had to kill Lupin because he wouldn't control his transforming, Harry would have to do it but would have respect for him. Now if Harry were to kill Snape, it wouldn't be filled with respect, instead, it would be filled with hatred. I see no way that the expressions on Snape's face or in his voice couldn't be a reason for his actions.

Now one thing I want to bring up before I end my arguement. The vow Narcissa made with Snape said that he would step in and do what Draco was to do if he couldn't do it. I believe that Draco was capable of killing Dumbledore and Snape just jumped in and did it anyway. It was not breaking the vow and Dumbledore had no knowledge of what Draco was planning. There is no proof to say that Dumbledore knew that he was going to die. The conversation he had with Snape that Hagrid heard could have been Dumbledore asking Snape to bring the Malfoy's over to the good side or to get close to Voldemort. I'm sorry but I don't see any solid proof that he was talking about Snape killing him. As said before, JK often leads on others to believe on thing and it be something completly different.

It could be that Severus and Dumbledore had already discussed that Snape was to end his life (him being given the post of DADA teacher and all), so that by agreeing to unbreakable vow-remember he was hesitant?-he hesitated because it would solidify that he would have to do it. . .whereas before he might have had the choice to refuse when the time came.

Also, this business with him stepping in before Draco could do it, even if he were going to, perhaps Snape stepped in to save Draco from having to do this terrible crime. Step in so that Draco would not have this on his conscience. It's very hard to guess at motive here until we have the facts, I suppose. If we're going to argue about the argument that Hagrid overheard (which I honestly think is kind of fruitless), we must also consider that perhaps Dumbledore was telling Snape that he needed to step in before Draco could stain himself with this crime. . .

And if Dumbledore in fact died of his condition, rather than the AK, that would be more meaningful. If however, he was killed by the AK, then the fact that DD's health was in poor condition may not be a very good excuse. Or... at least it would be even further controversial, I suppose... That's really all I can think to offer right now.

But, if Dumbledore wanted to die with dignity and doing something good at the same time, here saving Draco from committing the unforgivable AK, he could have ordered Severus Snape to do that. He wanted Snape to kill him, because he was ill and would have died anyway, and save Draco at the same time. Like this his death had a reason, was controllable and he didn't die a senile (so?) old man who has no idea what's going in the world.

And Dumbledore is probably another of the greatest Legilimens the world has ever seen, but somehow Snape's managed to fool one of them.

2. Snape goes to great lengths to make sure that his actions have been covered by both Dumbledore and Voldemort. He hasn't done anything that either of them could fault up to a point. (I'm arguing here for a history of his actions.)

3. Snape continually refers to Dumbledore's implicit trust in him. Narcissa, and even Bellatrix, point out how the Dark Lord trusts Snape above all. Snape's obviously got to be untrustworthy to one of them.

4.

Taking a look at the grammatical cues here-Snape doesn't actually imply he's only played his part well for Dumbledore. It's a sentence all on it's own, so it could imply he's played his part for Voldemort well. Also, I think he's misleading Bellatrix here. . .he's says "when I joined the staff," but I don't think Dumbledore would have let him join the staff in the first place if he'd needed to spin a tale of remorse after he'd already joined the staff.

5.

Snape HATES signs of weakness . . .any sign. Do you think he'd look up to Voldemort when he couldn't even kill a baby? I think Snape might have a problem with Voldemort's weakness as we've so often seen him have a problem with other people's weaknesses. (I'm only referrencing Narcissa here since she happens to be in this chapter.)

6.

In the chapters surrounding this one, Severus has never referred to the Dark Lord as "he" without first qualifying it by saying "The Dark Lord." Then Snape is free to refer to him as "he." In this instance, however, there is no qualifier for the "He." It is just stated. . . It could be that Snape is not referring to Voldemort here at all, but he's referring to Dumbledore. (He doesn't mention the Dark Lord at all in this particular paragraph.)

All these ponderings aside . . . I'd also like to throw out something to look at along a different line: Just how powerful is Severus Snape?

Take a look with me at Narcissa for a moment. Before the unbreakable vow, she says (referring to Draco's inevitable inability to carry out the task the Dark Lord has set for him)

I think we can probably ascertain she was going to speak of Voldemort's failure to get rid of Dumbledore.
Then, not a page later she says. . .

Hmm. . .
She's just said there's no hope that Draco could do it. She's just said that Voldemort couldn't do it. But, she seems to think that Severus Snape would have no trouble. "Of course you would (succeed)."

My question for you to consider in that is this: Just how powerful is our dear Severus Snape that at least one of Voldemort's own Death Eaters seems to count Severus as more capable then the Dark Lord himself?

I'm hoping this will fit well in this debate and will get you thinking on the way Snape presents himself to Voldemort's followers. . .

He actually doesn't. He continually reminds bellatrix that the Dark Lord trusts him. . .so she shouldn't be questioning. He never says "I'm on Voldemort's team as a Death Eater." He also says he's working as a spy for Voldemort, but he's also said he's working as a spy for Dumbledore.

The death eater, Amycus (I think), started to say "The boy doesn't seem able . . ." Which I suppose would alert Snape that Draco couldn't do it, but based on his prior conversation about Voldemort insisting that Draco try first. . .Snape would have asked Draco what was going on and if he couldn't do it. It is consistent with Snape's character that he would have goaded Malfoy a bit before giving up on him and uttering the curse itself.

I was also thinking again on this argument in the forest. If Snape were working where Voldemort wanted him, and was on Voldemort's side, why would he argue with Dumbledore about not doing it anymore? I mean, he's supposedly lying anyways, right?

As far as Snape saying he's lying to Narcissa . . . well he has no reason to admit this to anyone as it was the only private conversation we are admitted to hear between Snape and, well, anyone. We can't forget that authors will continually manipulte their readers by granting access to some and denying access to other conversations and situations. I don't think his words can be taken for an admission of guilt because of the circumstances surrounding that conversation. If I were a spy, I would not tell the side I was against that I was against it, would I, if confronted. It would just defeat the purpose of being a spy.

Heh, it appears louise was posting at the same time I was editing. . .

Ah, but he does, when he says "Yes, the Dark Lord thought that I had left him forever, but he was wrong." He is stating - as fact - that he had returned to the Dark Lord.

Michelle:

Trust has nothing to do with it. Dumbledore trusted Snape because Snape tricked him. This is what Snape admitted and nowhere does Dumbledore say anything to the contrary.

Regarding Snape's action PRIOR to GoF - he has explained that his actions were because he did not know Voldemort was alive and needed to keep in Dumbledore's favour because that was all that was keeping him out of prison.

He stopped the DE from hurting Harry on Voldemort's orders, as he stated in HBP to the DE responsible.

We know why Dumbledore trusts Snape, but we know this is because Snape tricked him - again by Snapes words.

We are comparing guesses and interpretations of Snape's possible 'good' motiviations and actions against the fact of his confession of 'evil' intent and action.

So, it becomes incumbent on the defensive to prove Snape's confession (in HBP) is not true. All of his actions after that confession fit in exactly with what he told the girls.

Don't they?

As I tried to point out before, this "confession" was not the one he made to Voldemort. . .it was to dissipate the questions other death eaters had about him. . .it was "confessed" with a spin so that they would not have doubt in him (which would be a very useful thing to avoid as a spy.) We cannot assume that this conversation paints him as evil . . . because it also may just be an instance of Snape saving his hiney.

And, bajab, I think that trust have everything to do with this! I don't think we'd be having this debate if both sides didn't trust Snape implicitly. There's the crux.

Yes, I know he said that "he was wrong." (Which is not saying that "I am loyal and have total allegiance to the Dark Lord) But, again, look at his situation. He is not at a position, during the accusation, to say "Hey, you're right, Bella. I am working for Dumbledore. I have turned against Voldemort. So, you wanna AK me now or let Voldemort do it?" You see what I'm saying? This is a biased conversation in favor of Voldemort, but I think there are plenty of instances in the conversation that place doubt on Snape's allegiance to Voldemort, and we have to consider these subtle cues in the text.

This would appear to be a bit of an assumption. We do not know exactly how much access Snape had to the Order and it's intelligence. We can assume that because Dumbledore trusted him, he was given full access, but Dumbledore also trusted Hagrid - with his life (SS)- and we have seen no signs that Hagrid had 'free reign'.
(Was Hagrid even in the Order? - I can't recall reading that anywhere - Please someone with a better memory check and PM me)

Since they made Fudge Minister, and Lucious a governor of Hogwarts, this is a bit of overconfidence in the Wizarding world Powers-That-Be.
Time and time again we have been shown Wizards are not exactly the wisest of people. Dumbledore was a great man, and undoubtably deserved the respect and postion he held, but he was fooled by Snape almost exactly the same way he was fooled by Quirrell and fake Moody.


Snape's actions before GoF were consistent with his statements. He may have been a very nasty piece of work (his true nature showing true?), but he was also working to stop Quirrell from obtaining what he wanted, that is why he worked hard to protect Harry. Also, don't forget the whole "Snape owed James his life" thing - that could account for a lot of his seemingly 'extrodinary' actions.

Definately, but that does not mean it was not true. As Bellatrix pointed out, Snape was very slippery. He could easily have turned them aside without making the confession, but he chose to prove his true loyalties to them.

So, getting back to my point, we still do not have any words or actions from Snape that contradicts his statements to Bellatrix. His confession still stands, and it confirms his guilt.

I think his line was "As I get older, my mistakes get bigger." OotP)(I'll have to go check for the exact wording, but that's the basic wording.) Also, in GoF, Dumbledore is confronted with the accusations from Madam Maxine and Igor Karkaroff about having made a mistake, Dumbledore's reply is "It is possible." (To which Mcgonagall is indignant), implying that it isn't likely. So as far as HUGE mistakes go, I don't think Dumbledore makes that many . . . and just because he says "my mistakes get bigger" doesn't mean that they are so huge.
As far as him being duped by Quirrell-didn't he appoint Quirrel to the position before Quirrell met up with Voldemort and had him plastered on his head? I could be wrong here . . . I'll have to go check the text.
Lockhart?! Not capable of duping Dumbledore. I think he was appointed because he was the only one who would take the job.
Moody-yeah, I'll give you that, though I think Dumbledore suspected something being "not right" with Moody after Harry's pensieve moment. (Again, I'll have to check.)

As far as the marauder's becoming animagi-well, he did know about Sirius, didn't he? (Man, a lot of checking I need to do.) But, in regards to that-you'll never hear one of us on the defense team say that Dumbledore is omniscient. We realize that he doesn't have knowledge of everything that goes on at everytime regarding every one . . . therein lies his potential for making mistakes. I just think that, so far, we haven't seen any major flaws in Dumbledore's judgement in character. (I'm still including Snape in that one.)

Hagrid was sent to the Giants on the Orders orders, so he is a member of the Order. (Um, rechecking, yeah.)

I have argued this elsewhere, but I can argue it here as well. Snape did not feel indebted to James. Dumbledore implies that it might be the reason, but when you look at Snape's response to Harry when he is confronted about it-Snape fills him in on the rest of the story. Snape did not feel that owed a life-debt or anyother kind of debt to James or James' offspring.

He chose to counter her accusations. . . It still seems that context is being ignored in regards to his "confession."

I'm with Louise, too, that I think Voldemort would be the more gullible one. He's so single minded in his quest for immortality and now his quest to destroy Harry-that he might be blinded and more easily swayed by someone. He was, after all, duped once before by the mysterious RAB. Because of Voldemort's strict you're-with-me-or-we'll-kill-you-policy, it wouldn't even occur to him that he would have a spy in his midst. Another reason why Snape's character is so brilliant. Dumbledore would have every reason not to trust Snape, but he does. I think that speaks more volumes than Snape being trusted by Voldemort under penalty of death.

Sigh, this was not the point I was making for my counter at all. I was saying that Dumbledore's trust should count for something here . . .but I brought in Snape's "confession" to show point out the double-meaning many of his words can, and perhaps do, hold. I was looking at the context surrounding them in light of cues from the text. . .and well, nevermind.

I do think that Dumbledore has never been wrong in his judgement of a character. Crouch jr. fooled him, but that wasn't a misjudgment of Moody's character-that was a mistake of not knowing his true identity. Crouch played Moody to a "t" and thus Dumbledore judged his character as Moody.

EDIT: Okay, here's the Hagrid bit.