I'm going to try coming at this theory in reverse. Instead of looking at who Red John might be, let's see how many people RJ likely cannot be.
In analyzing this, I'm not going to rely on anything Bruno Heller has said. He isn't going to want to expose the game too early, so I don't think we can be sure when he might be literally truthful, and when he might be misleading-without-openly-lying. Plus, as others have noted, there could be times when he basically has to lie. For example, if Brett Partridge really isn't dead, and some interviewer asks Heller whether Partridge is really dead, Heller has to lie (or mislead). He can't just say, "Nope, that's a misdirection." ;)
I'm also not going to rely on anything we supposedly "know" from Rosalind's descriptions, or Sophie's observations. Why? Because Rosalind (by her own admission) loved him (and therefore might have tried to plant false information to protect him), and because Sophie's observations were actually made about "Jay Roth," and we're technically only speculating that Jay Roth was Red John. It's possible that he wasn't, and that RJ killed Sophie for some other reason. (Or that he did see Sophie, but not as "Jay Roth," etc.)
So I'm suggesting these eliminations on meta- grounds or logistical grounds, not based on what some character or another said...
RJ can't be Jane, Lisbon, or Cho. Why? Because the show is continuing beyond the Red John story arc, and those three characters are remaining on board (with no indications that one of them will be consulting from prison or something). Obviously, at the end of the RJ story arc, RJ will be dead or imprisoned; if he isn't, it wouldn't be the end of the story arc.
RJ can't be someone whose normal responsibilities cause his schedule and/or movements to be too closely watched or restricted. I think this definitely eliminates Bertram and Stiles; they're too high-profile. It probably also eliminates McAllister; being the Sheriff of Napa County would keep a man's time and whereabouts pretty well accounted for.
I think those are just about the only ones we can pretty firmly eliminate. If we conservatively speculate a little, we can probably eliminate a couple more...
Let's accept that the killings at the Visualize farm are the work of RJ and not, for example, the inspiration for RJ (i.e., not a precursor). If they're genuine, that certainly eliminates Van Pelt, and very likely eliminates Smith and Rigsby, as being too young.
It also means we have a ten-year gap with no RJ killings, from 1988-1998. That's unusual for a serial killer, so logically, there must be some reason for the gap. It's probably not due to imprisonment, because that seems like it would be far too easy to check; if a likely suspect happened to have a big ol' chunk of prison time in between two RJ murders, I think someone would have figured that out by now. ;)
Most likely, he was training for something, and getting himself into a position where he could carry out his killings safely. A law enforcement position of some kind would give him visibility into the plans of authorities that are trying to catch him. That would fit Kirkland, Haffner, or Partridge. If Partridge is really dead, that seems to bring us down to two possible suspects.
Out of the two, my money would be on Robert Kirkland...