Hi there - I've been following this website for a while now, and
thought it time to contribute.
As a side note, a while ago, when I learned about the list, my friend and I
guessed who was going to be on it.
She came up with: Mashburn, Stiles, Bertram, Partridge, Kirkland, Volker and
Alex Jane.
My views were slightly different: Mashburn, Stiles, Bertram, Partridge,
Kirkland, Virgil and then I suggested a dark horse for the last space.
When I complied my list, my suspicions were centred around Mashburn and Bertram
- although I thought Virgil would've been good too.
Now that I've seen the real list, I like the idea of McAllister for Red John. I
operate on the assumption the list is correct – my reasons in shiw are
explained, but it would be a massive slap in the audience’s faces if it weren’t.
I would not like to make any form of conclusive statement, but rather look at
some of the evidence with fresh and objective eyes, not clouded by trying
to make evidence fit a certain character.
Definitively, I would like to state I am not making a case, but merely
pondering some of the clues and ideas posed. I will not consider pigeons, which
I would state are a non-clue, based solely on analysis of the reasons offered –
someone feeding pigeons at a park that Jane and Lisbon were in is not, to my
mind, suspicious, especially as they evidently were there before the two
arrived. Disliking having a pigeon fly in your face does not constitute a fear.
Things to consider
The list - I believe that the list of seven suspects is valid, and
people have questioned the validity of including certain suspects. I remember
it is stated that the list is derived from cutting down the handshake list to
only the suspects whom could've committed all the murders.
As such, if Red John is more than one person, as has been suggested, it implies
that the list is valueless - this is possible, although it does then bode the
question of why Jane is spending time with the seven suspects so much. Three
answers suggest themselves - that one of the suspects is guilty, that he knows
the list is invalid but would be spending a lot of time in proximity to Red
John anyway so it doesn't matter, or it is an elaborate trap.
How did Red John know the list? - Lorelei is dead, thus the list was
made before her death. As such, how could Red John produce Jane's list months
in advance? Here are some ideas: that Red John followed the same line of
reasoning as Jane and produced the same list via thinking and research. That
Jane did not produce a list, but rather simply used the one Red John provided.
That we have not seen all the video. Maybe Jane shot the video himself - this
does not suggest he is red John - as part of an endgame to trap Red John.
He is man – either Jared Renfrew or Red John himself wrote the words on the
word. If it was Renfrew, we can assume they are some clue to Red John’s
identity – of the theories I have seen so far, that would give us an incomplete
message, the word ‘Heisman’ or an anagram of some sort. If Red John wrote it,
it makes the message a bit more cryptic – a possible clue to his identity
again, or even some taunting.
Tyger tyger, and
William Blake – an obvious suggestion to
this motif is the hallmark of his killings, although the smiley faces fulfil
this goal – there is a form of religious imagery running through the word, so
it would suggest a possible religious connection to Red John’s killings. The
fearful symmetry line suggests either a literal or a metaphorical symmetry –
either something pertinent is literally an opposite, or a symbolic clash
exists. Why did Brett Partridge utter
the line when he dies – it suggests a Red John connection to him, although on
the follower front more than the man himself.
Rebecca – Rebecca was killed, and if we presume by Red John and not one
of his followers, it renders the situation interesting in regards to who could
actually have been there at the time, and who would have been able to get away
with such a murder? Although possible, it is hard to imagine anyone
particularly important would not have been recognised, but then equally hard to
imagine someone lacking in importance (in a law enforcement front) would have
been allowed near such a prisoner.
Appearances – we have had several descriptions of Red John, as well as an
appearance from the man himself when he saves Jane. Although we cannot say for
certain, there are several points of concurrence – his gender and his height. I
would not like to trust anything else, many of the characteristics could be
changed – hair, for instance – or faked – liking Bach.
Visualise – it is inferred that Red John has a connection to Visualise,
based on Bret Stiles’ knowledge of him and the barn murders. Whether or not he
was/is a member cannot be stated for certain, although it seems probable based
on the previous points. However, it may be Worthing considering that working on a farm could have been co-incidental - possibly to plant the Visualise connection - as we saw in the episode, there were non-Visualise members connected too.
Sophie Miller – there are a number of fallacies regarding Miller – for one,
although highly likely, we cannot state for certain that the patient Jay Roth
is Red John. Then, assuming he is, the idea of a phobia is only a suspicion of
Miller – we cannot take that as fact either.
Phone tracking – at the end of The Desert Rose, we can see quite clearly the
location of the tracked individual’s phones – this does not equate to the same
thing as each individual. Anybody could have left a phone at a location or in car
– the suspect being far away/in transit/both does not exclude them.
Getting away with it – as an inference more than a clue, we must consider that Red
John must have some sort of position of power, some sort of access to
information, respectability/exertion of influence and a great deal of intellect
to have been successfully murdering for so long. With some suspects, the framework
is evident – Visualise, Homeland Security, the CBI – but everybody considered could achieve this.
Just some thoughts - what does everyone else think?
