IANAL. I found an interesting article [1], "Legal Consequences of Apologizing", which says: > Usually, apologies are admissible into evidence. Admissability i

IANAL. I found an interesting article [1], "Legal Consequences of Apologizing", which says: > Usually, apologies are admissible into evidence. Admissability into evidence does not necessarily mean useful as evidence of guilt. Since an apology usually can be admitted into evidence, and because some plaintiffs choose to understand an apology as an admission of guilt, it seems safest not to apologize. Case law suggests, however, that courts do not see it this way. Judges and juries seem to like apologies and treat them favorably. Often, an apology does nothing to satisfy the plaintiff's burden of proof. In some proceedings, an apology can be a mitigating factor, and the lack of an apology can be an aggravating factor. and concludes: > This article illustrates that judges and juries understand that expression of sympathy, regret, remorse and apology are not necessarily admissions of responsibility or liability. This serves the public interest because such expressions have the potential to reduce the number of lawsuits, rather than attract litigation. When someone goes to court armed only with an apology, they may find that it does nothing to satisfy the elements of the case they need to prove. Additional evidence is required, almost as if the apology did not exist. Cool. [1]: https://scholarship.law.missouri.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1313&context=jdr https://scholarship.law.missouri.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?art...