SF, two things:

Accident != Murder. Dumbledore was not a murderer. It's reasonable to believe that he accidentally killed his sister. It's not reasonable to believe that he murdered her.

I'm still not seeing the immense importance of an absent confession. Far more important than confession is penance, and Dumbledore did spend most of his life in opposition to the greatest evil in the magical world. Yes, he threw Snape to the wolves, but Snape himself was a man in need of repentance and Dumbledore provided him with such an opportunity. Despite Snape's untimely death and Dumbledore's hallows foolishness, both proved instrumental in the downfall of Voldemort.

I'll take that over the magic two words anyday.

Uhm, OK. Did you have a better plan for getting rid of Voldemort?

The ends justify the means, huh?

I am sure this is exactly what Dumbledore would have said, if he had the stomach to really face the man he was - that all his crimes were for a "Greater Good"... of course, the problem is, its Dumbledore who decides what the greater good is, and people like Snape who have to die for it.

You seem to be advocating inaction in the face of great and terrible evil.

I seem to think that the ends DO NOT always justify the means.

Both Voldemort and Dumbledore disagreed.

__

I agree, 100% that Dumbledore did not intentionally kill his sister. He did not commit PRE-MEDITATED murder in this case.

And I 100% believe he struck the killing blow, that he knew that he did it, and he did not face up to the truth or admit that her blood was on his hands. His crime is more than anything refusing to face what he did.

It would have been easy for Harry to leave Dudley to the dementors... he did not. It was hard for Dumbledore to face his guilt... and so he did not.

I judge the two of them thusly.