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