I'm pretty much convinced that Red John is Brett Partridge or maybe someone else who is not on the list but I can't think of anyone else who could be a credible suspect other than Brett Partridge.
Has anyone ever heard of GOLDEN AGE OF DETECTIVE FICTION? It was an era of classic murder mystery novels produced by various authors, all following similar patterns and style. In that era 10 rules of good detectiv stories were established so I decided to see if I can apply any of these 10 rules to The Mentalist to help me get closer to finding out who Red John is.
1. THE CRIMINAL MUST BE MENTIONED IN THE EARLY PART OF THE STORY, BUT MUST NOT BE ANYONE WHOSE THOUGHTS THE READER HAS BEEN ALLOWED TO KNOW. - If we apply this rule to the mentalist it really points to Partridge. We see him in the first episode of the first season and many times more but we never actually learn anything about him.
2. THE DETECTIVE HIMSELF MUST NOT COMMIT THE CRIME. - If there is anyone out there who still thinks Jane is Red John, applying this rule would make that theory imposible.
3. TWIN BROTHERS, AND DOUBLES GENERALLY, MUST NOT APPEAR UNLESS WE HAVE BEEN DULY PREPARED FOR THEM.- This rule cancels out Bob/Micheal Kirkland theory.
There are 10 rules all together but I didn't list them all simply because these 3 are the most helpful ones in concluding who Red John is.
There is one more thing that I noticed in 6x07. When they brought Reede Smith in for questioning he told them a story of how he was addicted to pain killers and because of them he accidentaly shot a 12 year old girl. Tyger Tyger organization helped him to conceal this incident in return for his services.
After hearing that story Smith told I immediately rememberd that in previous seasons Cho had an addiction to pain killers and they never showed us how or when or if he ever stopped using those pain killers. Does anyone else think this is a little suspicipus or is it just a plain coincidence?
