Can "in" be replaced by "with"? [duplicate]

Possible Duplicate:
“Covered with” vs “covered in” vs “covered by”

From J.K. Rowling’s Harry Potter and the Philosopher’s Stone (June 1997):

He bent down and pulled his wand out of the troll’s nose. It was covered in what looked like lumpy grey glue. ‘Urgh — troll bogies.’

Or in its shamelessly bowdlerized version, Harry Potter and the Sorcerer’s Stone (October 1997), ‘translated’ from the original English for the American mass-market audience:

He bent down and pulled his wand out of the troll’s nose. It was covered in what looked like lumpy gray glue. “Urgh — troll boogers.”

From Colin Fine’s explanation, I can picture the troll’s boogers widespread over the wand, not hiding it. In the example, can “in” be replaced by “with” keeping the same meaning in the reply?

To my ear, "covered with" suggests that it was done deliberately and beneficently. "She covered him with a blanket", "The turtle eggs were covered with sand".

"Covered in" suggests that it was an sloppy accident. "I'm covered in mud!"

To me the two seem pretty much synonymous. Aside from some idiomatic usages, cover with seems to be much more common in all cases.