Most usually find something to say even if not admitting guilt and some of course profess they innocence for the "last" time to the judge. Hard to say, her lawyers might help her craft something that carefully shows sympathy for the women without professing guilt or a part in it but then on the other hand, maybe that is unlikely as even doing that would be admitting that something happened to them...
I don't think it wise to stay silent entirely at sentencing but some do. Judges can be harsher with sentencing because the lack of taking responsibility for one's actions now that the guilt phase is over and she has been deemed guilty by a jury. Imo and from seeing same.
Her way and her lawyers way to date has been to complain and whine about what many if not most deal with in jail/prison. I guess for that reason and their ways and stance throughout, I don't see guilt being admitted in any fashion.
I'm sure many of the articles are put out there somehow by the defense and it sickens me the use of publicity that way when in so many cases defense whines about pretrial publicity on one hand but then uses publicity and the media on the other hand when they want it.
'While the tutoring sounds admirable on the surface, it also is no surprise and especially now that sentencing is upon her. All that good samaritan, citizen, prisoner is pretty common and especially with sentencing and the type of thing to show the judge look what she has been doing, being productive in jail, trying to give something back to the community, etc. Very common and most have seen it many a time and generally the timing is obvious as well... It is like so many the minute they go to even county jail for something instantly becoming God fearing born agaiin Christians and adopt such a behavior in the courtroom... But hey, not knocking that she is doing it... Just feel the reason may be self serving.
I think it unlikely the judge will throw the whole book at her with consecutive max sentences on each count but I think it just as unlikely the judge will lean towards the light side either. Again if a fair judge which no reason to believe she is not. A judge does not have to follow any recommendation or suggestion which honestly is both a good and bad thing imo, it gives one person a lot of power and that's why judges need to be so above board and fair and also why many attempt to influence them imo.
The only thing she has going for her is that first time offender thing also imo. And I don't see that as very significant. Her crimes went on for years on end and she was found guilty of several charges, not just one first time offense. I see quite a bit not in her favor on the other hand. No remorse, no admission of built (most likely), continuing such crimes for years, never knowing better even as the years go on or she gets older, etc.
While she may have "left" Epstein some years back now, it doesn't minimize the crimes she did commit. That's like saying when someone murders someone and the system and defense delays, etc. end up delaying the murder trial for years on end that it then is less serious and the offender shouldn't face as much time and that should not matter--not the case and wrong. Defense loves delays and it is thought to favor defense of course because witnesses forget, memories dull, some even die or can't be found, etc. BUT they are as guilty as they were when they did it and even though the public perception and outrage may soften over time or just be not as intense, a judge shouldn't go any lighter because of that although that is what is hoped with delays I'm sure...
So also seven though she has been away from Epstein for some years, so what? Is that supposed to change things for her? The crimes happened and it doesn't erase them. It may have stopped her from committing more or being part of more that she would have been charged with as well, that's her benefit for leaving.
All jmo.
www.nbcnewyork.com
