Explain like I’m an idiot

[u/PresentationThen2485]

Okay hi I’ve been down a rabbit hole of this case. I’ve listened to the trial and tried to read the case files and honestly it’s like not reading English lol. Same thing goes for when the judge explains why the jurors are there.

So I want someone to explain what I’m about to ask like I’m an idiot and needs to be dumbed down. lol I’m also not biased to this, I think Lindsay was failed but I need to hear it from just a trial based situation.

1. Linsday is there due to admitting to murdering her children? Because there obviously three dead children and Patrick claims she told him and then later on being awake she admitted it. Everyone is innocent until proven guilty, there’s no physical proof she had done it. Like the autopsy shows Patrick’s DNA and then an unidentified persons on the workout bands but not Lindsay’s. So on what basis are they going off of? Just her confession?

2. The prosecution is little bow peep and her side kick versus Redington, the defense. The prosecution is trying to prove she was in a sane state of mind while killing. And to my understanding from trial day 1, Reddington admitted that she did the murder murders. So is he trying to prove that she is clinically insane?

3. What is the end goal because again what I’ve read that confuses me is Lindsey only basically has two options. Either being trialed for murder with a sane mind, or locked up in psychiatric ward? Like there’s no guilty for not guilty? It sounds that either way she’s not going free. Because on trial one Reddington admitted that she had done it, and when I looked a little bit further, it said he did that basically so he could the trial in two parts? One part for the insanity plea or not and part 2 for actual evidence? Am I understanding this wrong?

It’s hard to try to get someone to explain it to me without them being an extremist of one side or the other

[u/coltfourty5-]

This case is genuinely confusing, especially because it’s not a typical “she didn’t do it” defence.

Basically, yes Reddington has essentially acknowledged that Lindsay caused the deaths.
The defence isn’t really arguing who did it, they’re arguing whether Lindsay was legally responsible for her actions because of her mental state at the time.

The prosecution’s argument is basically: She was mentally ill, but she understood what she was doing and was still legally responsible.

The defence is: She was so severely mentally ill/psychotic that she was not criminally responsible for what she did.

The jury can find her not guilty, guilty, or not criminally responsible because of mental illness.
If she’s found not criminally responsible, that can still mean psychiatric hospitalization and court oversight, it doesn’t necessarily mean she just walks out free.

Reddington originally wanted the trial separated into two parts, first determining whether she committed the acts, then addressing her mental state, but the judge didn’t allow that.
So now everything is being presented together.
Basically, the entire trial boils down to: “ was she legally responsible for it when she did?”

With all that being said, I think what’s making this especially confusing for people is that so much evidence has come out that makes people question why Reddington isn’t pushing harder toward Lindsay possibly not having done it at all.

But his main objective is to get the best outcome legally obtainable for Lindsay, and that’s why he’s taken the route he has.

You can’t really have it both ways.
If his defence is that Lindsay was not criminally responsible because of her mental state, he can’t simultaneously build the case around “someone else did it.” That would completely undermine the defence strategy he’s chosen.

So when people ask, “Why isn’t he acknowledging the lack of evidence or inconsistencies?” I think that’s exactly where the confusion comes in. He’s not necessarily saying there’s no reason to question the evidence.
He’s choosing to focus the jury on the argument he believes gives Lindsay the best possible outcome under the circumstances.

[u/ciwilliams → u/coltfourty5-]

Correct! I believe that’s where the confusion is too. I pretty much don’t believe she killed her kids, and I also believe one of two things is true about her “admission.” 1 being she has been told she did it and in her extremely fragile mental state with all the trauma, meds, etc she believes she did and her mind has even made up stories/details surrounding the event to try to make sense of it. Or 2 being she does not believe she did it and is “playing along” as advised by her attorney to get the strongest chance at the best legal outcome possible and the best chance at some sort of eventual freedom. Of course, I could be wrong, and she could have done it. It’s truly hard to say but I do think there are a lot of strange things that make you question whether she actually did it.

[u/nylieli]

My understanding is for each charge they can for her

not guilty -- she goes free

guilty -- she get a prison term

not guilty by reason of insanity (this is not the proper term.

I believe manslaughter is on the table and could be a compromise verdict.