What spell did Snape really cast?

[The Frozen North]

I know that in various threads this matter has been discussed so it's obviously a contentious issue, so I thought, rather than keep going off thread to discuss this we could have a thread dedicated to just this one subject, with all the arguments that follow (Snape - evil because this spell cast - DD not really dead, etc.) I know that much of this has been discussed on other threads but not specifically based on the spell itself.

I personally believe that Snape cast AK. I've heard the argument that says he could have cast a non-verbal spell whilst actually saying AK but that doesn't work for me. Speaking is little more than verbalising thoughts, therefore to say AK he must have thought it. In addition, despite the human brain's immense speed and complexity, we can generally only think one thing at a time (agreed, we can think quickly so that we may have many thoughts in one second but they still come one at a time - just like a pc multi-tasking, it still only does one thing at a time).

The second main argument I have heard against Snape casting AK is the movement of DD's body when all others seam to just drop dead, silently. I would say it actually depends on the target and the power of the wizard casting the spell (just as a Patronus charm can be cast with varying intensity). I would equate this argument to a large calibre gun compared to a small calibre gun and the respective effects that they have. In GoF Moody/Crouch casts AK on a spider and the results are described as below:
There was a flash of blinding green light and a rushing sound, as though a vast, invisible something was soaring through the air - instantaneously the spider rolled over onto its back, unmarked, but unmistakably dead. Several of the girls stifled cries; Ron had thrown himself backwards and almost toppled off his seat as the spider skidded towards him.

As we see here, AK can have the effect of moving the target.

I believe that it has also been argued that the rebounding AK cast by Voldermort at the baby Harry is what destroyed the house; if that is the case I think that to move a human body should be no problem at all.

[Alz]

A jet of green light shot from the end of Snape's wand and hit Dumbledore squarely in the chest. Harry's scream of horror never left him; silent and unmoving, he was forced to watch Dumbledore blasted into the air. For a split second, he seemed to hang suspended beneath the shining skull, and then he fell slowly backwards, like a great rag doll, over the battlements and out of sight.



A blast of green light blazed through Harry's eyelids, and he heard something heavy fall to the ground ground beside him...



The second jet of light hit him squarely on the chest. The Laughter had not quite died from his face, but his eyes widened in shock ...

...it seemed to take Sirius an age to fall: his body curved in a graceful arc as he sank backwards through the ragged veil hanging from the arch.
Harry saw the look of mingled fear and suprise on his godfather's wasted, once handsome face ...

This touches upon another debate I like - was Sirius dead before he hit the veil.
JKR says in OoTP a red light missed him before this spell hit him ... but observe how he exits the story ... kinda like Dumbledore ...

My proposal - that the thing that hit Sirius was the same as was used on Dumbledore - and I would even venture to say that it wasnt the usual reactions of AK - noted by the GoF Cedric death.

I see the point about the spider - but that is much smaller even a breeze could have contributed to it from the 'swish' AK causes ... ;)

[alohabear]

Why was it when Snape did the Avada Kedavra on Dumbledore did he fly in the air over the wall? In Previous novels(the GOF) persons justed "dropped"dead on the spot. Just wondering?

[Alz]

Why was it when Snape did the Avada Kedavra on Dumbledore did he fly in the air over the wall? In Previous novels(the GOF) persons justed "dropped"dead on the spot. Just wondering?
Hi there

Just wanted to let you know I merged this with another thread that dealt with this as well - hope that was OK :)

[jburden]

If the two spells are the same...I think that siruius and DD are dead, goners, outta here.

Yes agruments are they might have lived...but think about it.

Would serius's sister..cousin, whatnot, want to let him live?

I am pretty sure the spell was AK...I mean...you have to point out the PEOPLE as well.

[Weasleyfanforever]

I have to agree that it is the power of the person casting, as well as the amount of hate that the person has in them.

A few people have used "Moody" as an example. He was a relatively powerful wizard, enough to be able to cast AK anyways. But this is where it gets a bit fuzzy I think. It is said that you really have to mean it to cast AK, it can't be righteous anger or the like. So, could that spider have seriously wronged BCJ enough that he hated it? I doubt it. I think that you have to hate someone, or something and be able to hold onto that while you are casting the spell. I mean, it would explain the look on Snape's face while he cast AK. Maybe he wasn't necessarily thinking about Dumbledore, but he obviously has some seriously deep seeded anger and hate issues going on with somebody.

[Boing]

Just what I was thinking, Wheezy. When Moody does the spider "trick" and Wormtail kills Cedric, it is not out of fear/hatred. They still have the power to do it, and sure, Moody "wanted" to kill the spider to make a point and Wormtail needed to kill Cedric because his master had ordered it. So, for both of them, the need/desire was there, but it wasn't pulsing with anger or anything - just a general feeling.

When Snape dispatches Dumbledore, he is shown to be repulsed (by the actual killing or by the person being killed, we don't know), but it is obvious it is a charged situation and that he has some very strong feelings for Dumbledore either way. In this case, he is saying the spell with lots of emotion behind it and it causes the target to fly backwards.

I think, as Wheezy mentioned, it is a matter of the spell caster and how powerful they are and also what emotions they are feeling at the time.

[Luna Lovegod]

I agree with you here you have to mean to cast the AK curse in order to do any real damage, for example, in OoTP at the end in the ministry, when harry followed beautrix and they were fighting, if i remeber correctly she says to Harry that you have to mean it to cast an unforgivable curse.

[The Frozen North]

I have to agree that it is the power of the person casting, as well as the amount of hate that the person has in them.

A few people have used "Moody" as an example. He was a relatively powerful wizard, enough to be able to cast AK anyways. But this is where it gets a bit fuzzy I think. It is said that you really have to mean it to cast AK, it can't be righteous anger or the like. So, could that spider have seriously wronged BCJ enough that he hated it? I doubt it. I think that you have to hate someone, or something and be able to hold onto that while you are casting the spell. I mean, it would explain the look on Snape's face while he cast AK. Maybe he wasn't necessarily thinking about Dumbledore, but he obviously has some seriously deep seeded anger and hate issues going on with somebody.

I like this, not thought of it before but it's a bit like casting a Patronus Charm (Or for that matter like Peter Pan flying), just holding on to that thought, in the case of Patronus it's a happy thought inthe case of AK a thought of hatred and malice. Good one, explains alot as Snape has alot of hatred and malice bottled up inside, certainly enough to fuel a few spells and with the exceptionally diciplined mind he has he is a pretty scarey character regardles of which side he's really on.

But we are getting a bit off the topic here, we have another thread called "Really meaning an unforgivable curse" where this is discussed.

[Alz]

I know that in various threads this matter has been discussed so it's obviously a contentious issue, so I thought, rather than keep going off thread to discuss this we could have a thread dedicated to just this one subject, with all the arguments that follow (Snape - evil because this spell cast - DD not really dead, etc.) I know that much of this has been discussed on other threads but not specifically based on the spell itself.

I personally believe that Snape cast AK. I've heard the argument that says he could have cast a non-verbal spell whilst actually saying AK but that doesn't work for me. Speaking is little more than verbalising thoughts, therefore to say AK he must have thought it. In addition, despite the human brain's immense speed and complexity, we can generally only think one thing at a time (agreed, we can think quickly so that we may have many thoughts in one second but they still come one at a time - just like a pc multi-tasking, it still only does one thing at a time).

The second main argument I have heard against Snape casting AK is the movement of DD's body when all others seam to just drop dead, silently. I would say it actually depends on the target and the power of the wizard casting the spell (just as a Patronus charm can be cast with varying intensity). I would equate this argument to a large calibre gun compared to a small calibre gun and the respective effects that they have. In GoF Moody/Crouch casts AK on a spider and the results are described as below:


As we see here, AK can have the effect of moving the target.

I believe that it has also been argued that the rebounding AK cast by Voldermort at the baby Harry is what destroyed the house; if that is the case I think that to move a human body should be no problem at all.

OK - lets steer it back on-course!

I covered this in another thread - but we have never seen anything other than AK used to kill someone.
Assuming that Dumbledore is indeed dead - I suppose following this logic it would seem like it was AK - although I still question the mechanics in this example.

One again on assumption - and just IMHO - what could a member of the Order use to terminate another person if the case dicatated - that didnt involve them having to cast UC?
Is it only that AK can be used to bring about the demise of another wizard?
I hope this isnt off topic but just seems logical if we are questioning AK being used - what other curses, spells or charms have we seen that could vanquish a life?
Because, this also has impact on Dumbledore 'vanquishing' Grindelwald right?
If he did use AK then - we have to assume that it is legit other Order members use it when needed.

[Flash]

If there was another spell that could be used to kill a person/animal I'd think it'd have to be one of the unforgiveable curses unless, and there's a big unless, it could easily be mistaken for AK. What I'm getting to here is that both of the people who killed Dumbledore and Sirius had a lot of reasons to do it (whether they were forced to by some spell {which I believe is some part of the reason Snape did it, if that's the only one} or had a very great hatred + family blood ties) and they were both very powerful too.
So, what it could be is that this spell hasn't actually been deemed an unforgiveable curse because it has always been mistaken for something else and the people who can do it all have ties to Voldemort so it's possible he has created the spell himself.

[jburden]

From what I have thought up, snape's emotion was the face he absolutily hated Dumbly for saying he HAD to kill dumbly if it came to that, and hated dumbly for forcing him to do so since it would put him in a awkward position with the order.

It seems he acts as if he hates everyone, including serius and harry potter, so that he does not blow his cover...maybe if he is happy, he shows his weakness or his thoughts.

maybe that is why he acts loathing...it helps him cover his true intentions to voldy.

back on topic.

I am sure the order has the right to us AK only when nesesarry.

I mean....Most of the order arrested, not killed, people and put them in prision...and when they fight, considering they don't use killing spells most of the time, it seems that they do their best not to use the spells because it is forbidden, they abide by the law till situation gives that they must break it.

[The Frozen North]

I mean....Most of the order arrested, not killed, people and put them in prision...and when they fight, considering they don't use killing spells most of the time, it seems that they do their best not to use the spells because it is forbidden, they abide by the law till situation gives that they must break it.

I think we're getting things a bit confused here, the Order is not some kind of police force and are not an official ministry organization, it's a group of people dedicated to fighting the dark forces of Voldermort and they have no authorization to cast any spells or do anything that any independant wizard or witch hasn't the right to do. The people who arrested and killed dark wizards and witches are Aurors who work(ed) for the Ministry of Magic. So lets try not to get sidetracked into how spells are cast and who can cast them, the question on the table is "What spell did Snape really cast?".

I maintain that AK can have physical effects on the target and surrounding area dependant on the power of the caster and possibly the size of the target (just look at how stunning spells are ineffective against Hagrid and relatively so against dragons). Voldermort destroyed (at least possibly) the Potters' home when his spell rebounded and destroyed himself and look at the destruction in the MOM when DD and Voldermort dueled. Me thinks that Voldermort was tryng to kill DD as he was surprised that DD was not trying to kill him (of course he did not know that Harry is the only one with the power to do this). So let's try to run with this and see what the possibilities are.

[Alz]

Well if I understand your re-direction case - you are precluding any other outcome other than it being AK.
In order to look at what spell Snape might have used other than AK - you have to investigate what other spells - where they might have been used etc to try and find a similar match.
Given we have only ever seen people put to death by AK - we can only logically conclude that AK was cast right?
If you are looking for other possibilities - you will need to accept an expanded look at other events and spells to see if you can case match any of the qualities to what we saw happen that night?
Or am I getting the question wrong? :o

[The Frozen North]

I'm not precluding anything, perhaps I was a bit to channelled with my last post, just expresing my personal view. However I do think another spell might have been used (if indeed DD is still alive it could not have been AK), do whe know, for example if Expelliramus gives any visible signs, we know it moves objects. I was more concerned with directing the debate away from whether or not Aurors and members of the Order are allowed to cast AK as it does not seem particularly relevant.

[Alz]

Ok, one thing everyone is entitled to is opinion - so never apologise for that!
I think if someone goes to the trouble of starting a thread then they also have a say in how the direction runs - as such you comments are all legit - no issues here.

Back on-topic ...
OK - in support of another spell being used - and also the possibility that Snape may have performed a non-verbal at the same time.
We know that you really have to mean it when you cast AK - as seen with Harry in OoTP yada yada ...
So, could Snape really have mustered up all the anger and hatred enough to see off the guy that gave him a lot of chances? Maybe off-topic but just trying to lend weight to this idea another spell was used.
I will need to re-read but when Harry tried to attack Bellatrix - did any green light leave his wand? This is to say - maybe you can have the bells and whistles but no effect ...
Ergo, you may have a point with Expelliarmus - because he could give the visible effect that he was casting AK - but in reality he was throwing Dumbledore out of the picture and harm - stop anyone else seeing if he really was dead.
Just some more thoughts - I hope that doesnt takes us off track again - I was just trying to fuel the idea's by giving it plausiblity.

[The Frozen North]

That's exactly the type of argument I was hoping to cultivate. Anyone else??

[Federalist_10]

I agree with the person/people above me who said that it might not have been AK at all because Dumbledore had a reason for always trusting Snape. Maybe, this is a part of Dumbledore's plan. Maybe he wasn't dead, and just needs for everyone to think that he is so that Dumbledore can search for the Horcruxes in peace.

[Alz]

I wonder if maybe we saw a combination of spells in order to create the effect?
You could just as easily have Snape doing a non verbal Reducto and maybe another spell that casts green light from the wand - the appearance would give to having Dumbledore thrown up and over the tower - and all people heard was AK?
Reducto woud perhaps achieve the same result - kind of moves things with a bit or power.

[kashlie]

Snape is a very powerful wizard, and there is a clue in there we may have missed - he invented Sectumsempra - which makes it entirely possible that one of his tasks under Dumbledore was to create a spell that resembled AK, to fool everyone.
It had to be powerful enough to move Dumbledore (or he could have moved himself), so that he could be out of sight to create the look of being dead...

[frodobaggins]

snape really really really casted the AK curse. Dumbledore is dead.

Tell me if this sounds crazy:

i believe this was said in HBP
dumbledor says to Harry that he rarely ever makes mistakes but on the rare occassion that he is wrong the consquences of his mistakes r mutiplied greatly.

dumbledore messed up in trusting snape and the consquences were great= he died

[cagedcactus]

First of all no need to check on that spell on Bellatrix. Because Harry didnt cast a AK. He tried to cast crucio.
My side of the stroy is this.
Snape did cast an AK. no, I dont think there was a non verbal spell behind this to cover the unintentional verbal spell.
He casted AK, but whether he meant to cause death? hmmmm..... maybe, maybe not.
Green jet will come out regardless of the intention when AK is cast. But result will vary on the desired cause.
now my problem is with the Unbreakable VOW.
If Snape didnt kill DD, then he should have died. Because he didnt carry out the task that was given to Draco. Unbreakable VOW should have killed him.
AAAAAARGHHHHHHH......
I love JKR.....

[Alz]

Well given the news Dumbledore is really dead - I guess we can assume that it really was AK - and I suppose the hatred Snape had was the for task he was left with - not really hating Dumbledore.