The Mentalist Season 3 Finale (SPOILERS)
KalElFan
M
A
J
O
R
S
P
O
I
L
E
R
S
B
E
L
O
W
Great episode, especially the last hour. Technically there's no
proof that guy was Red John, but the nature of RJ is such that
there'd never be 100% proof. I think the intent is that he was
Geniune Red John and if we get a PTB statement to that effect
it would seal it as canon.
I'm a bit surprised they didn't leave the final RJ confrontation
and death until the end of the series, but I suppose it would
have become more difficult to sustain good RJ stories for 4
or more seasons. So I like the decision, especially since the
way they did it was a very nice end-of-third-season payoff...
1. Jane gets his sweet revenge. He'll get off on self-defence
because RJ had the gun too. Jane now needn't be as damaged
and obsessed a character next season. CBS gets a show that's
more purely episodic.
2. FBI Guy gets the boot, so the soap opera there ends as
well. Rigsby and Van Pelt can get a relationship waiver and
get married sometime in Season 4 if the writer gods allow.
3. Various supporting characters including those who weren't
the mole remain available. LaRoche is interesting and we'll
eventually get to find out what's in his tupperware perhaps. :-)
Hightower, Bertram, the DA guy, and more importantly the
show as a whole might all be a bit more fun without the Red
John arc hanging over it all.
Robin Miller
I just wanted to say that I agree. I was very surprised by the final
turn of events. Loved how Patrick sat down and finished his tea.
Within the story, I'm not sure how they're going to justify not charging
him with homicide, since he was not in any danger and has no basis for
claiming self-defense.
Outside the story, I hope the writers can make up for the loss of the
Red John storyline. Not that it was that great, but it was the thread
running through the show from the beginning. It seems like the writers
will have to add a new element to make up for its being gone, but what?
And I was glad that Van Pelt's boyfriend turned out to be the bad guy. I
expected it, but once they (incorrectly) ID'ed Michael Gaston's
character as the baddie, I thought it made sense since he has a new show
in the fall.
--Robin
KalElFan
news:wdWdnaIe9MneYUjQ...@giganews.com...
> M
> A
> J
> O
> R
>
> S
> P
> O
> I
> L
> E
> R
> S
>
> B
> E
> L
> O
> W
>
> ... [Patrick} was not in any danger and has no basis for claiming
> self-defense.
RJ had the gun and could have had other weapons, so I think
Jane has self-defense, and also defense of others in the Mall
and beyond because RJ's a serial killer. Jane could have shot
RJ in the back even if RJ DIDN'T have a gun, and I don't think
Jane would have anything to worry about. Within the story, he
and the CBI Team get kudos and maybe a parade -- they'll all
become celebrated as supercops. :-)
> It seems like the writers will have to add a new element to
> make up for its being gone, but what?
Something lighter, like what's in LaRoche's tupperware. :-)
There could also be leaderless lemmings of RJ out there, who
seek vengeance, or copycats or whatnot. But I think this ep
works fine and best as The End of the Red John arc. Hawaii
5-0 may want to do the same with Wo Fat in a couple of
seasons if not next season.
> ... once they (incorrectly) ID'ed Michael Gaston's character
> as the baddie, I thought it made sense since he has a new
> show in the fall.
I didn't know that, but maybe LaRoche gets bumped up and
Hightower comes back.
Ian J. Ball
>
> MAJOR SPOILERS here for the Red John story...
>
> M
> A
> J
> O
> R
>
> S
> P
> O
> I
> L
> E
> R
> S
>
> B
> E
> L
> O
> W
All I can say is:
O
H
M
Y
G
O
D
Red
John
...is...
DAN STARK!!!(??!?!!!??!!)
Ian (Wonder how many people around here will get the reference...)
KalElFan
news:10ff54db-c238-4857...@q14g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
O
H
M
Y
G
O
D
Red
John
...is...
DAN STARK!!!(??!?!!!??!!)
Had to Google it
http://www.imdb.com/character/ch0205067/
http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0925966/
Arthur Lipscomb
Honestly, I still see him as Roger from Revenge of the Nerds 2.
Robin Miller
> "Robin Miller" wrote in message
> news:wdWdnaIe9MneYUjQ...@giganews.com...
>
>> M
>> A
>> J
>> O
>> R
>>
>> S
>> P
>> O
>> I
>> L
>> E
>> R
>> S
>>
>> B
>> E
>> L
>> O
>> W
>>
>
>> ... once they (incorrectly) ID'ed Michael Gaston's character
>> as the baddie, I thought it made sense since he has a new
>> show in the fall.
>
> I didn't know that, but maybe LaRoche gets bumped up and
> Hightower comes back.
He's one of the regulars in Unforgettable on CBS in the fall:
Unforgettable stars Poppy Montgomery as Carrie Wells, an enigmatic
former police detective with a rare condition that makes her memory so
flawless that every place, every conversation, every moment of joy and
every heartbreak is forever embedded in her mind. It's not just that she
doesn't forget anything - she can't; except for one thing: the details
that would help solve her sister's long-ago murder. Carrie has tried to
put her past behind her, but she's unexpectedly reunited with her
ex-boyfriend and partner, NYPD Detective Al Burns (Dylan Walsh), when
she consults on a homicide case. His squad includes Det. Mike Costello
(Michael Gaston), Al's right-hand man; Detective Roe Saunders (Kevin
Rankin), the junior member of the team; and Detective Nina Inara (Daya
Vaidya), a sassy, street-smart cop. Being back on the job after a break
feels surprisingly right for Carrie. Despite her conflicted feelings for
Al, she decides to permanently join his unit as a detective solving
homicides - most notably, the unsolved murder of her sister. All she
needs to do is remember. Ed Redlich, John Bellucci, Sarah Timberman and
Carl Beverly are executive producers for Sony Television Studios in
association with CBS Television Studios.
Since they're on the same network, I suppose he could do double duty,
since his character doesn't appear very often.
--Robin
Brian Thorn
No, JOSH LYMAN!
Brian
Brian Thorn
Television rarely surprises me anymore, but holy mother of pearl, that
ending blew me away.
I do think Whitford's character was the real Red John. Next season
will be the beginning of a new focus of the show on searching for Red
John's conspirators. It isn't clear yet that LaRoche and Bertram are
totally innocent (Why did LaRoche kill Gupta in the car... "he was
trying to escape", really? with cops all around outside the car? Why
did Bertram recite Blake's "Tiger, Tiger..." a few episodes back?) and
how did Red John know about the meeting at the Mall if Bertram wasn't
his mole?
But I do hope these loose ends are tied up quickly.
It wasn't without flaws (Lisbon gets shot, but no one rushes to her
after O'Laughlin is taken out? Highttower went to her kids, Grace ran
to O'Laughlin.)
Brian
Brian Thorn
<kale...@yanospamhoo.com> wrote:
>"Robin Miller" wrote in message
>news:wdWdnaIe9MneYUjQ...@giganews.com...
>
>> M
>> A
>> J
>> O
>> R
>>
>> S
>> P
>> O
>> I
>> L
>> E
>> R
>> S
>>
>> B
>> E
>> L
>> O
>> W
>>
>
>> ... once they (incorrectly) ID'ed Michael Gaston's character
>> as the baddie, I thought it made sense since he has a new
>> show in the fall.
>
>I didn't know that, but maybe LaRoche gets bumped up and
>Hightower comes back.
I think LaRoche's fortunes are on the decline, since it was Lisbon and
Jane that solved the Red John case, even though LaRoche was brought to
do that. He'll probably be gone and Hightower will be back.
Brian
Arthur Lipscomb
Me too. I was thinking how could Jane *not* carry a gun, just for this
occasion, then...
>
> I do think Whitford's character was the real Red John. Next season
> will be the beginning of a new focus of the show on searching for Red
> John's conspirators. It isn't clear yet that LaRoche and Bertram are
> totally innocent (Why did LaRoche kill Gupta in the car... "he was
> trying to escape", really? with cops all around outside the car?
Not just that but his behavior right before was beyond odd. He was
practically jumping up and down and waiving it's me.
Why
> did Bertram recite Blake's "Tiger, Tiger..." a few episodes back?) and
> how did Red John know about the meeting at the Mall if Bertram wasn't
> his mole?
>
He could have been following Jane.
> But I do hope these loose ends are tied up quickly.
>
> It wasn't without flaws (Lisbon gets shot, but no one rushes to her
> after O'Laughlin is taken out? Highttower went to her kids, Grace ran
> to O'Laughlin.)
I don't see that as a flaw. Kids and fiance (not enough time for love
to turn to hate) win over co-worker.
Ian J. Ball
wrote:
Eh, Lisbon's a tough nut - she can take care of herself! ;)
Robin Miller
> On Fri, 20 May 2011 00:22:11 -0400, "KalElFan"
> <kale...@yanospamhoo.com> wrote:
>
>> MAJOR SPOILERS here for the Red John story...
>>
>> M
>> A
>> J
>> O
>> R
>>
>> S
>> P
>> O
>> I
>> L
>> E
>> R
>> S
>>
>> B
>> E
>> L
>> O
>> W
>>
> It wasn't without flaws (Lisbon gets shot, but no one rushes to her
> after O'Laughlin is taken out? Highttower went to her kids, Grace ran
> to O'Laughlin.)
I felt the same way, especially with Grace. Her boss was shot and is
crawling around the room--for all she knows, Lisbon is dying--and she
rushes over to her dying finance who was actually an assassin planted by
Red John? I would have found it much more believable if she had at least
checked on Lisbon, saw that it was a survivable wound, and then checked
in with dying fiance/assassin.
--Robin
Windowwasher
news:F62dnfEScux4D0vQ...@giganews.com...
And then the dying tool ripped the locket he just gave her from her neck as
his last deed. Was that to tell her he really didn't love her or is/was
there something else going on with it.
Anim8rFSK
<10ff54db-c238-4857...@q14g2000prh.googlegroups.com>,
"Ian J. Ball" <ijb...@mac.com> wrote:
I've heard it both ways.
Fred (Wonder how many people around here will get the reference...)
--
"Please, I can't die, I've never kissed an Asian woman!"
Shego on "Shat My Dad Says"
Anim8rFSK
Robin Miller <Not_My@Real_Address.com> wrote:
> Unforgettable stars Poppy Montgomery
Who, ironically enough, I had completely forgotten.
Anim8rFSK
chicagofan
LOL! I thought things had gone terribly bad for "Josh Lyman" since I
saw him last. ;)
bj
Bob(but not THAT Bob)
When Jane shot him my first thought was - poor BW gets cancelled twice
in one season!
Robin Miller
I took it to mean the first thing you suggested. His final act was to
show that it was all a fraud.
--Robin
Adam H. Kerman
>Robin Miller <Not_My@Real_Address.com> wrote:
>>Unforgettable stars Poppy Montgomery
>Who, ironically enough, I had completely forgotten.
[rimshot]
Adam H. Kerman
Pruitt Taylor Vince is a fantastic actor, but this role didn't exactly
require his tremendous talent. Hope he gets some juicy parts
next season.
Adam H. Kerman
Adam H. Kerman
Ken from Chicago
John, yep, Red Joan seeks revenge on the man who killed her daddy!
-- Ken from Chicago
P.S. And after that she's gonna kill Charles Bartowsky, Leroy Jethro Gibbs,
James Bond and of course, Peter Parker.
Horace LaBadie
Anim8rFSK
JMS already killed Peter Parker, in every way that matters.
Ken from Chicago
"Anim8rFSK" <ANIM...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:ANIM8Rfsk-96B8D...@news.easynews.com...
You misspelled "Joey Q".
Last I heard it wasn't JMS who had an irrational hatred of Peter Parker
growing up, maturing, being married or having kids--unlike Joey Q, JMS' boss
and the Editor-in-Chief of Marvel Comics. And it wasn't JMS wasn't behind
Spider-Man's "Brand New Day" which negated Spider-Man's marriage in a sad
attempt by Joey Q to reboot Spider-Man back to Peter Parker's high school or
college days, certainly his pre-marriage days.
But don't let the facts get in the way of your hatred of all things JMS.
That wouldn't be the Internet way. You keep right on blaming the wrong Joe.
-- Ken from Chicago
Patricia Martin Steward
All the old farts will.
--
We are becoming a country that believes the rich have earned their money but the well educated have not
earned their intellectual superiority. This leads to a nation that idolizes Kardashians.
Joel Stein, TIME, 8/23/10
Patricia Martin Steward
<window...@somewhere.com> wrote:
>
>And then the dying tool ripped the locket he just gave her from her neck as
>his last deed. Was that to tell her he really didn't love her or is/was
>there something else going on with it.
I knew it was him when he gave it to her -- betcha it's bugged.
Ian J. Ball
wrote:
Just the ones who love bustin' punks!!!
Ken from Chicago
"Ian J. Ball" <ijb...@mac.com> wrote in message
news:10dfbe29-23f0-4871...@x38g2000pri.googlegroups.com...
Exactly. Tis a flesh wound.
-- Ken from Chicago
Hunter
Not_My@Real_Address.com says...
>
> KalElFan wrote:
> > MAJOR SPOILERS here for the Red John story...
> >
> > M
> > A
> > J
> > O
> > R
> >
> > S
> > P
> > O
> > I
> > L
> > E
> > R
> > S
> >
> > B
> > E
> > L
> > O
> > W
> >
> > proof that guy was Red John, but the nature of RJ is such that
> > there'd never be 100% proof. I think the intent is that he was
> > Geniune Red John and if we get a PTB statement to that effect
> > it would seal it as canon.
>
>
> turn of events. Loved how Patrick sat down and finished his tea.
-----
And asked for the bill from the terrified woman running the espresso
kiosk LOL!
>
> Within the story, I'm not sure how they're going to justify not charging
> him with homicide, since he was not in any danger and has no basis for
> claiming self-defense.
----
RJ did have a gun and it will be found but I think people could testify
that no one saw RJ with the gun out and Patrick did call him back and
walked over to him after RJ was walking away. The Espresso girl probably
would've been in the best position to see and hear, but the fact is he
did have a gun. And I am sure the Mall's security cameras caught all the
action including RJ walking away.
The thing is proving he was RJ right now all they have is that Agent
O'Laughlin (sp?) was in contact with him via cell phone but that doesn't
prove he was RJ--unless they recorded the call, but even that will be
very slim evidence. I don't think RJ would leave anything incriminating
in his home. It will be vital to Jane's defense that they prove he was
Red John. I am looking forward to how they get him out of it.
The ironic thing is that they highlighted Jane's dislike of
guns in this episode, but anyone who saw Jane keep his hand in his
jacket pocket knew he had a gun, one of the top ten clichés of all time.
I am surprised that Red John fell for it. One can say he thought he knew
Jane too well--of course there is a possibility that that *wasn't* Red
John!
It would be a PERFECT mind fuck (sorry to use the profanity but that is
exactly what it would be) of Jane if he was just one of R J's more
sophisticated disciples and Red John told him only things he would know,
like what kind of perfume Jane's wife wore and the shampoo his kid used
when he slaughtered them and this apostle just repeated what he was told
in case Patrick asked for "proof" as he must have known he would. How
would Patrick, who is against personal violence himself, feel if he
found out that he didn't kill RJ but just a minion? RJ got PJ to kill!!
Wouldn't it be the ultimate victory to get Jane to kill if that wasn't
RJ? I do admit that is a long shot. :-)
In "CSI: Las Vegas" Nate Haskill drove Ray Langston to kill in the
season finale as well, albeit in a much, much less sophisticated and
brutal manner but essentially in the same way. Will Jane's friends be as
understanding as Ray's were? Of course what happened with Jane was far,
far more public with a couple of electronic footprints so I don't think
so and of course then there's Cho. :-)
Everyone who saw "CSI" knew how that turned out, I am looking forward to
seeing how Jane gets to keep his freedom AND his job. There will be no
show without him with his job. :-)
>
> Outside the story, I hope the writers can make up for the loss of the
> Red John storyline. Not that it was that great, but it was the thread
> running through the show from the beginning. It seems like the writers
> will have to add a new element to make up for its being gone, but what?
----
Yes, Red John was the driving force, which is why I am surprised
apparently Patrick got his man now (and I have a tiny bit of doubt that
was really RJ). Maybe they didn't want to follow "Monk" and wait until
the very last episode like that show did? After he found his wife's
killer Monk became somewhat more normal in the last few minutes of the
series. Will that happen to Jane? If so, will he loose his edge? I mean
he still be a very highly skilled detective but the snark that drove him
and use to cover up his pain and guilt with will it be gone?
>
> And I was glad that Van Pelt's boyfriend turned out to be the bad guy. I
> expected it, but once they (incorrectly) ID'ed Michael Gaston's
> character as the baddie, I thought it made sense since he has a new show
> in the fall.
>
> --Robin
------
I was misdirected too but I took Van Pelt's FBI fiancé into account
largely because of one thing: Grace has red hair. Poor Grace. She is in
the business of being able to judge people. Will she trust herself, her
instincts again?
--
----->Hunter
"No man in the wrong can stand up against
a fellow that's in the right and keeps on acomin'."
-----William J. McDonald
Captain, Texas Rangers from 1891 to 1907
Artis
wrote:
> "Ian J. Ball" <ijb...@mac.com> wrote in messagenews:10dfbe29-23f0-4871...@x38g2000pri.googlegroups.com...
I do hope that Lisbon avoids Jane's personal life. She and he are so
different, even without Red John.
Ian J. Ball
> On May 21, 9:06 pm, "Ken from Chicago" <kwicker1b_nos...@comcast.net>
> wrote:
> > "Ian J. Ball" <ijb...@mac.com> wrote in messagenews:10dfbe29-23f0-4871...@x38g2000pri.googlegroups.com...
> > > On May 20, 7:42 am, Arthur Lipscomb <art...@alum.calberkeley.org>
> > > wrote:
> > >> On 5/20/2011 6:45 AM, Brian Thorn wrote:
>
> > >> > It wasn't without flaws (Lisbon gets shot, but no one rushes to her
> > >> > after O'Laughlin is taken out? Highttower went to her kids, Grace ran
> > >> > to O'Laughlin.)
>
> > >> I don't see that as a flaw. Kids and fiance (not enough time for love
> > >> to turn to hate) win over co-worker.
>
> > > Eh, Lisbon's a tough nut - she can take care of herself! ;)
>
> > Exactly. Tis a flesh wound.
>
> different, even without Red John.
Bah! They're *meant* to be together!!
Ken from Chicago
"Ian J. Ball" <ijb...@mac.com> wrote in message
news:a895c97a-ebdd-41fc...@e17g2000prj.googlegroups.com...
Yep, now she's all wounded and needs someone to nurse her back to help,
while Jane is suspended from helping CBI while the investigate the Red John
shooting. Natch they happen to stumble onto a neighborhood mystery while
Lisbon plays Rear Window recuperating at home with Jane sticking his nose in
where it doesn't belong. He solves the murder while she saves his life from
the murderer. And the episode ends happily, except ...
... Jane finally breaks down and finally fully grieves the murder of his
wife and daughter that he had been repressing all these years, while Lisbon
admits her fear of actually dying that time and they find comfort in each
other, until ...
... they are cleared to return to work at CBI. And Lisbon has to face the
irony that she was suppose to force Grace and Riggs apart professionally or
romantically, since Jane is merely a consultant, technically they can be a
romantic couple and work together (ala FBI agent Olivia Dunham and civilian
consultant Walter Bishop on FRINGE).
-- Ken from Chicago
Hunter
says...
>
> "Robin Miller" wrote in message
> news:wdWdnaIe9MneYUjQ...@giganews.com...
>
> > M
> > A
> > J
> > O
> > R
> >
> > S
> > P
> > O
> > I
> > L
> > E
> > R
> > S
> >
> > B
> > E
> > L
> > O
> > W
> >
>
> > self-defense.
>
> RJ had the gun and could have had other weapons, so I think
> Jane has self-defense, and also defense of others in the Mall
> and beyond because RJ's a serial killer. Jane could have shot
> RJ in the back even if RJ DIDN'T have a gun, and I don't think
> Jane would have anything to worry about. Within the story, he
> and the CBI Team get kudos and maybe a parade -- they'll all
> become celebrated as supercops. :-)
-----
Oh, no. If Jane shot him in the back Jane would be up for straight up
murder. Yes RJ had a gun but he never brandished it in the open, just
kept it in the rolled paper so living witnesses and Mall security
cameras
likely didn't see it. It was apparently in his pocket when Jane shot
him. Also as of now there is no proof that RJ is RJ. I won't be at all
surprised if there is nothing in his apartment. All they have so far is
Agent O'Laughlin having been contacted by him on his cellphone so far
nothing more.
Yes we the audience know what RJ did and it is very likely he was RJ (I
have a small doubt) but to out side people besides us the audience and
Patrick, Grace and the rest of the team, there might be no evidence.
Jane has a long road a head of him.
>
> > It seems like the writers will have to add a new element to
> > make up for its being gone, but what?
>
> Something lighter, like what's in LaRoche's tupperware. :-)
----
Him wearing women's clothes?
>
> There could also be leaderless lemmings of RJ out there, who
> seek vengeance, or copycats or whatnot. But I think this ep
> works fine and best as The End of the Red John arc. Hawaii
> 5-0 may want to do the same with Wo Fat in a couple of
> seasons if not next season.
----
It is possible. Manson Family members committed crimes in his name long
after he was put in prison, including Lenette "squeaky" Fromme trying to
kill President Gerald Ford in 1975, but I think they will be hap hazard
and most of them will be caught quickly lacking guidance from their
"Lord".
(snip)
Ian J. Ball
wrote:
> "Ian J. Ball" <ijb...@mac.com> wrote in messagenews:a895c97a-ebdd-41fc...@e17g2000prj.googlegroups.com...
Actually, this is a good storyline - I kind of hope they do this for
the season premiere...
Dano
"Hunter" wrote in message
news:MPG.28438b07b...@news.optonline.net...
================================================
That's a lot! Are you kidding me? That's a HUGE connection. They will
have all that testimony about this rogue, murderous FBI agent who killed two
police officers in cold blood...and was trying to kill at least
Hightower...and shot Lisbon. They have that murder weapon. Then they have
the investigation they were running that tied the various pieces of the
conspiracy together. The cell phone records just wrap it all up in a nice
neat package. The two (actually THREE...the hit woman so dedicated that she
leapt to her death) co-conspirators are no longer around to cast any doubt.
The only thing is...I don't believe they were alone. At least one of the
two bosses at the CBI were almost certainly involved somehow IMO. One of
them may just actually turn out to be the real Red John.
Hunter
Not_My@Real_Address.com says...
>
> Brian Thorn wrote:
> > On Fri, 20 May 2011 00:22:11 -0400, "KalElFan"
> >> A
> >> J
> >> O
> >> R
> >>
> >> S
> >> P
> >> O
> >> I
> >> L
> >> E
> >> R
> >> S
> >>
> >> B
> >> E
> >> L
> >> O
> >> W
> >>
>
> > after O'Laughlin is taken out? Highttower went to her kids, Grace ran
> > to O'Laughlin.)
>
>
> crawling around the room--for all she knows, Lisbon is dying--and she
> rushes over to her dying finance who was actually an assassin planted by
> Red John? I would have found it much more believable if she had at least
> checked on Lisbon, saw that it was a survivable wound, and then checked
> in with dying fiance/assassin.
>
----
It was the man she loved. The heart can't turn on a dime like that.
--
Robin Miller
>>> It seems like the writers will have to add a new element to
>>> make up for its being gone, but what?
>>
>> Something lighter, like what's in LaRoche's tupperware. :-)
> ----
> Him wearing women's clothes?
My thought was a memorial piece of a dead pet dog, the predecessor to
his current pooch.
--Robin
Ken from Chicago
"Ian J. Ball" <ijb...@mac.com> wrote in message
news:611da2c8-d126-440f...@z7g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
Oh wait, that should be FBI agent Olivia Dunham and civilian consultant
Peter Bishop.
-- Ken from Chicago
P.S. Everyone knows civilian consultant Walter Bishop and FBI agent Astrid
er um, somethingorother are all starry eyed for each other.
Ken from Chicago
"Ian J. Ball" <ijb...@mac.com> wrote in message
news:611da2c8-d126-440f...@z7g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
They could. It's exactly an original idea. An injured officer while
recuperating investigates neighborhood mystery ala Rear Window has been
spoofed many times. And romance between patient and nurse or between
grieving widower and friend, both plots are also old as the hills.
And we all know CBS is all about the tried and the true.
-- Ken from Chicago
Ken from Chicago
"Ken from Chicago" <kwicker1...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:YpGdnfC8yOp-hkfQ...@giganews.com...
"It's [not] exactly an original idea."
> recuperating investigates neighborhood mystery ala Rear Window has been
> spoofed many times. And romance between patient and nurse or between
> grieving widower and friend, both plots are also old as the hills.
>
> And we all know CBS is all about the tried and the true.
>
-- Ken from Chicago (who hates his archnemesis "omitted 'not' typo")
inf...@mindspring.com
wrote:
>In article <93mdl8...@mid.individual.net>, kale...@yanospamhoo.com
>says...
>>
>> "Robin Miller" wrote in message
>> news:wdWdnaIe9MneYUjQ...@giganews.com...
>>
>> > M
>> > A
>> > J
>> > O
>> > R
>> >
>> > S
>> > P
>> > O
>> > I
>> > L
>> > E
>> > R
>> > S
>> >
>> > B
>> > E
>> > L
>> > O
>> > W
>> >
>>
>Oh, no. If Jane shot him in the back Jane would be up for straight up
>murder.
True. Again referring to North Carolina law, another criteria for
using lethal force is that you may not do so if the attacker breaks
off the attack. RJ with his back turned and walking away was no longer
a threat.
Dano
wrote in message news:a4qkt6pfoi21dkqg6...@4ax.com...
=======================================
A law enforcement official ( I know...he's not a real cop...but he IS an
agent of some sort with the CBI) allowing an armed and obviously dangerous
person to walk free and unchallenged in a public, crowded place? One that
had just moments earlier threatened him? THAT must violate SOME law no? He
could say he had clear reason to protect the public safety.
Hunter
Not_My@Real_Address.com says...
I don't think so myself. It isn't so horrible. Not at all. A bit creepy
maybe to have a bit of your old pet inside a safe but horrible? Nah.
Oh and I meant before to say "Pictures of him wearing women's clothes?"
That is what you get when you forget to proof read. :-)
--
Anim8rFSK
inf...@mindspring.com wrote:
Which is why you yell YO MAMMA to get him to turn around first.
inf...@mindspring.com
wrote:
PJ did something very similar. I thought at the time it was a ploy to
avoid having to shoot RJ in the back.
Hunter
COPS can't shoot people in the back if they aren't presenting a clear
and deadly threat to them there fellow officers or bystanders. The one
exception I think are escaped cons from prison. Otherwise you can't
shoot people that aren't presenting a obvious threat. Even if the perp
is running away with a gun it is iffy, if they make moves to use that
gun on the public then they can fire. But if he is just walking or
running away with no visible weapon then no you can't shoot.
As for Jane he is a consultant to the police with an laminated ID badge
NOTHING MORE. He could probably make a citizens arrest but any can do
that. He has no law enforcement capacity whatsoever.
--
Dano
"Hunter" wrote in message
news:MPG.2844da735...@news.optonline.net...
========================================
D: What's your point? He did NOT shoot him in the back. I thought it
quite obvious that was the reason he called out to him as he did.
===========================================
As for Jane he is a consultant to the police with an laminated ID badge
NOTHING MORE. He could probably make a citizens arrest but any can do
that. He has no law enforcement capacity whatsoever.
=================================================
I think he is still acting as a police employee. He may not be required to
act...but his actions should certainly be defensible. My only question is
about Jane's gun. Was it legal? Even if it is...we KNOW he's not what they
call "qualified". That's the one thing I think could cause him grief. But
not enough to bring a criminal charge on I think.
KalElFan
news:fcqct6tkmdefp4fvq...@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 20 May 2011 00:22:11 -0400, "KalElFan"
> <kale...@yanospamhoo.com> wrote:
>
>> MAJOR SPOILERS here for the Red John story...
>>
>> M
>> A
>> J
>> O
>> R
>>
>> S
>> P
>> O
>> I
>>L
>> E
>> R
>> S
>>
>> B
>> E
>> L
>> O
>> W
>>
>> Great episode, especially the last hour. Technically there's no
>> proof that guy was Red John, but the nature of RJ is such that
>> there'd never be 100% proof. I think the intent is that he was
>> Geniune Red John and if we get a PTB statement to that effect
>> it would seal it as canon.
>
> Television rarely surprises me anymore, but holy mother of pearl,
> that ending blew me away.
>
> I do think Whitford's character was the real Red John...
It's obviously up to the writers, within whatever constraints set by
EP Bruno Heller (who also wrote the last hour) and by CBS. It's
plausible that it was a Red John senior lieutenant and the story
drags on perhaps until the end of the series.
The thing is, if they do that now I think it never ends. No series
finale could credibly end it. So I have to believe the intent of CBS
and Heller is that it had gone as far as it should go. It was a three-
season arc and now it'll become more purely episodic.
> ... Why did LaRoche kill Gupta in the car... "he was trying to
> escape", really? with cops all around outside the car? ...
Aside from the "answer" being a technique to keep the viewers
guessing, anything that involves Red John justifies being nervous,
trigger-happy, and having a default assumption that something
will probably go very wrong. So the writers could easily attribute
that to LaRoche.
> ... Why did Bertram recite Blake's "Tiger, Tiger..." a few episodes
back?) ...
I think they effectively explained that here when Cho also had
some knowledge of the poet William Blake, as did LaRoche in the
earlier ep right after Bertram. If you look up the wiki on Blake
it mentions his work has become more popular, so I think we're
just left to assume it isn't uncommon for many in the Mentalist-
verse to recognize Blake. It was just a red herring to get us to
suspect multiple people especially in this season-ender.
Again, there's nothing to prevent TPTB from doing the exact
opposite, but I think the Industry Bible these days, especially
at CBS, is probably very heavily in favor of episodic/procedural
dominating a series. If they allow the Red John story to survive
this and keep going, I think it very seriously risks becoming a
ridiculous joke.
Remember Sylar? Heroes made huge mistakes before he
became an annoyance, but sticking with that character really
did help bury the show. He needed to die a lot sooner, as in
season 2 at the latest. Neverending Quests and the like have
an extremely limited market, way lower than what CBS wants.
Arguably they should rename The Mentalist to The Red John
No-Show, if what should be the great ending here turns out
to be a setup for seasons-more chain pulling
> ... how did Red John know about the meeting at the Mall if
> Bertram wasn't his mole?
Obviously FBI Guy told Red John that Jane and the CBI thought
it was Bertram. In fact I think part of Red John's dialogue to
Jane was that he planned FBI Guy to be in the process of killing
off and/or kidnapping Hightower et al. Red John was hoping to
"teach [Jane] another lesson" or some such. The key moment
there was when Jane figured out that the rope was to descend
down one more floor and therefore FBI Guy was the mole not
Bertram. Without that, Jane doesn't ever call Lisbon and Red
John wins because he probably controls hostages via FBI Guy.
This is another reason why I think Genuine Red John works in
this ending. Red John thinks he's fully protected not because
he has a gun, but because he'll have hostages including both
of Hightower's kids. He just doesn't expect Jane to figure out
the rope at all, and certainly not in time to stop FBI Guy at
that late stage. When Jane does, Red John is stuck there and
pinpointed by the cell phone call, another development he
didn't expect.
It's just not a situation even the Genius Supercriminal Red
John thought he could end up in when he went to the mall.
He thought he'd be 100% safe, meeting Jane face to face on
his own terms.
When it all goes wrong for him, his failsafe is to try to play
it cool and show the gun, thinking Jane is just bluffing about
having a gun himself or that Jane would never use it in that
environment.
The hand-wringing about whether it would have been okay
to shoot RJ in the back is worth the writers avoiding in and
of itself. Of course it would have been okay. You don't let
a serial killer walk off in a mall, and no jury convicts Jane
even if a DA tried to press charges. But why write it that
way when a key objective, including for Jane's vengeance,
is to know for certain (or as certain as possible) that it's RJ.
So they have Jane lure Red John into turning back and
proving he's RJ. Red John being Red John he can't resist.
Then they have Jane shoot him. The scene makes it as
close to "proof" he's RJ as the viewership can get. Yes,
he's a supercriminal but it's not credible that he planned
for Jane to realize the rope's purpose, stop FBI Guy, have
RJ's lieutenant's phone called, and then have his lackey
prepped to tell the scent story. RJ's MO, if anything in
that scenario, would have been to have his lieutenant
blow his own brains out when the plan went awry, just
like he had the earlier assassin jump off the balcony and
kill herself.
So I think it's a very well-written end to the Red John
arc as is. This is a very good show and I can't rule out
that they could pull off dragging it out, but I think it'll
be a shame (and a mistake) if they do that.
As for the "vengeance" angle that some don't seem to
like, it's far from the only justification here even for
Jane. The big one being that he saved lives. I'm also
reminded of HBO's Rome (also Bruno Heller's), a show
where far more visceral violence got perpetrated by the
protagonists. It was a different context and era being
portrayed, but I think The Mentalist viewership *liked*
seeing Jane (i) avenge his wife and daughter's death AND
(ii) do it in a way that sucked Red John into making it a
no-brainer that Jane never even gets charged.
Dano
"KalElFan" wrote in message news:940r3d...@mid.individual.net...
=======================================
I think you're conveniently overlooking a fair number of things in order to
make this fit your assumptions. I don't see why they would have left so
many threads hanging loose if this Red John plot is over. That they have
left the LaRoche and Bertram elements so completely unexplained might be the
biggest. But I also think this screams out for some explanation for the
suicidal nature of the co-conspirators...like a shred of motivation for ANY
of them. How does a seemingly normal, accomplished, and charming FBI agent
go psycho? Quite a stretch in itself...but are they leaving that
unexplained? There are many more items. I can't believe they will just
drop this now and switch to only a crime of the week procedural.
Hunter
Not legally, and remember we are trying to get Jane off. Put yourself in
the jury a jury will not know what we know or what Lisbon's team knows.
All we have a Jane shooting a man in the mall that had a gun but not
aimed at him at the time. There is nothing to say independently that he
is Red John so far. We only have Jane's word
> They
> >will have all that testimony about this rogue, murderous FBI agent
> >who killed two police officers in cold blood...and was trying to kill
> > at least Hightower...and shot Lisbon.
That will be enough to show that O'Laughlin was a murderer considering
they also have his weapon to run ballistics on but how does that tie
into Red John?
>
> > They have that murder weapon.
That connects to Agent O'Loughlin not to Red John.
> Then they have the investigation they were running that tied the
> various pieces of the conspiracy together.
But how does that tie to Red John? There are no living people in their
custody that know him.
>
> The cell phone records just wrap it all up in a nice
> neat package.
We know of one cell phone call and I would expect that RJ would be smart
enough to use a burner. But even if they have all the calls between
O'Laughlin and John how does that proves any of that connects to Red
John? O'Laughlin talked to him. So what? I doesn't prove he is Red John,
just somebody. Even if there was a tape Red John's comment was basically
you win some you loose some" not very incriminating to an outsider who
doen's know what is going on, like a juror.
>
> The two (actually THREE...the hit woman so dedicated that she
> leapt to her death) co-conspirators are no longer around to cast any
> doubt.
No doubt? How so? How do they tie into Red John? Again we are talking
legally in court, not what we know as the audience or Lisbon or her team
knows. All they have is there say so and a DA could always say they are
friends and would say anything to protect Jane, just like Lisbon
protected Hightower despite her being a wanted fugitive. What do they
have to give to Jane's defense attorney to convince a jury what Jane was
somehow right? There is no independent evidence that can say they are
Red John agents even if they did to say that the man Jane shot was in
fact John and those killers were connected to him. Jane better have had
a tape recorder in his pocket along with his gun to have any hope of
getting off, I mean we KNOW he will but right now there are no obvious
way with the evidence we have now.
>
> The only thing is...I don't believe they were alone. At least one of
> the two bosses at the CBI were almost certainly involved somehow IMO.
> One of them may just actually turn out to be the real Red John.
That is possible I agree if that is true it is possibly LaRouche, and I
am going mostly off what happened to Gupta in the police car and the
look between LaRouche and his partner.
--
Artis
> In article <irch7r$ar...@dont-email.me>, janeandd...@yahoo.com says...
>
>
>
> > "Hunter" wrote in message
> >news:MPG.28438b07b...@news.optonline.net...
>
What is left hanging, is why Red John attacked Jane's wife and
daughter. Was it just a random act, or was there some motive? Jane
prevented that explanation by killing Red John. That has got to haunt
him, unless he already knows.
Horace LaBadie
<7604ac29-6c80-4461...@c26g2000vbq.googlegroups.com>,
Artis <laj...@GMI.net> wrote:
> What is left hanging, is why Red John attacked Jane's wife and
> daughter. Was it just a random act, or was there some motive? Jane
> prevented that explanation by killing Red John. That has got to haunt
> him, unless he already knows.
That was explained long ago. Jane went on TV back in the days of his
"psychic" career and basically ridiculed RJ and claimed some
understanding of him. RJ decided to teach him a lesson. It was the same
mistake that Kristina Frye made.
Hunter
wrote:
---
In your previous answer you seem to think it didn't matter if he
would've been shot in the back or not. Then I brought up cops can't do
that and the perp have to show he was a clear and present danger, an
immediate one.
>
> I thought it
>quite obvious that was the reason he called out to him as he did.
----
Oh you think it is better he shot him in the front? Well he still
wasn't holding a gun and he was walking away when Jane called him back
to talk to him then he shot him. The Mall's surveillance cameras will
show that. Yes Red John's gun would've fallen out of his newspaper but
the tape will not show him holding it at the time Jane shot him.
>
>===========================================
>
>As for Jane he is a consultant to the police with an laminated ID badge
>NOTHING MORE. He could probably make a citizens arrest but any can do
>that. He has no law enforcement capacity whatsoever.
>
>=================================================
>
>I think he is still acting as a police employee. He may not be required to
>act...but his actions should certainly be defensible. My only question is
>about Jane's gun. Was it legal? Even if it is...we KNOW he's not what they
>call "qualified". That's the one thing I think could cause him grief. But
>not enough to bring a criminal charge on I think.
-----
It doesn't matter if he is a cop or not which was the point of If
either Lisbon, Van Pelt, Hightower, Cho and Rigsby did exactly what
Jane did and Red John did exactly what he did Lisbon, Van Pelt,
Hightower, Cho and Rigsby would be all up for murder.
You just can't shoot people, especially if there is no objective
evidence of this being Red John or can tie him to any of the murders,
at least not with any evidence so far.
------>Hunter
Dano
"Hunter (Hunter)" wrote in message
news:4ddcedb...@news.optonline.net...
===========================================
I re-read my earlier response and must say I can see how you could interpret
that I was saying it would have been okay to buckshoot RJ. My bad. I
didn't mean to infer that. Having said that...I doubt the video will be
clear enough (after all this IS fiction...the writers can make it up as they
like) to determine whether Red John made a move for his gun or not. In such
close quarters, it becomes Jane's word against his. Oh...wait...RJ is dead
isn't he? The point is...the gun had to fall to the floor. They have the
cell phone call from the murderous fed. The testimony of THREE CBI
agents...one of whom was shot.
Obviously WE know this was pure vengeance by Patrick. Proving it would be
very difficult. Who would even want to try to gain a conviction in this
case?
Hunter
@suddenlink.net says...
>
> On Fri, 20 May 2011 00:22:11 -0400, "KalElFan"
> <kale...@yanospamhoo.com> wrote:
>
> >MAJOR SPOILERS here for the Red John story...
> >
> >A
> >J
> >O
> >R
> >
> >S
> >P
> >O
> >I
> >L
> >E
> >R
> >S
> >
> >B
> >E
> >L
> >O
> >W
> >
> >proof that guy was Red John, but the nature of RJ is such that
> >there'd never be 100% proof. I think the intent is that he was
> >Geniune Red John and if we get a PTB statement to that effect
> >it would seal it as canon.
>
> Television rarely surprises me anymore, but holy mother of pearl, that
> ending blew me away.
>
> will be the beginning of a new focus of the show on searching for Red
> John's conspirators. It isn't clear yet that LaRoche and Bertram are
> totally innocent (Why did LaRoche kill Gupta in the car... "he was
> trying to escape", really? with cops all around outside the car?
It is plausible because desperate criminals when they realize they are
going to die in prison by either being executed out right or of old age
do desperate things. I've been saying there was a certain look on his
and his partner's faces that looked suspicious to me as they entered the
police car with Gupta hand cuffed. I rewatched the scene and I don't
think there was a furtive look between LaRouche and that other bald guy.
LaRoche was just looking around as he entered the care so I think I take
"the Look on LaRoche's face" back.
> Why
> did Bertram recite Blake's "Tiger, Tiger..." a few episodes back?)
Perhaps the same reason Cho did, something prompted him?
> and
> how did Red John know about the meeting at the Mall if Bertram wasn't
> his mole?
-----
O'Laughlin told him and Rigsby likely told him because he told him that
Hightower was back. Rigsby Cho and Lisbon were the only ones that Jane
told, at least on screen. Alternately Lisbon or Cho or Rigsby could've
told Van Pelt and Van Pelt told O'Laughlin.
>
> But I do hope these loose ends are tied up quickly.
>
> It wasn't without flaws (Lisbon gets shot, but no one rushes to her
> after O'Laughlin is taken out? Highttower went to her kids, Grace ran
> to O'Laughlin.)
----
Well under the circumstances both are understandable. Naturally
Hightower are going to go to her kids so they aren't traumatized by
seeing a dead bloody body in the house. Grace, despite what happened can
also be understood as to why she acted like that. The man she loved and
was going to be married to is dying, even if she is the one who helped
shoot him. She is confused, bewildered, in at least mild shock and
wanting to know why so she goes to him.
Lisbon is on her own for a few moments, but Grace does come to her.
--
Arthur Lipscomb
I agree there will be an issue of proving the man was Red John. To add
a twist to this, let's assume regardless of whether or not the man was
Red John there is zero proof he is Red John. What if someone comes
forward and says the man went to the mall under duress and was told in
advance what to say. A wife for example, who says she was being held
hostage unless her husband complied with these instructions. Or even
just a wife who says her loving husband would never be involved in any
of this unless he was forced to by Red John.
Jane's going to have a hard time arguing he has a right to kill anyone
he believes is Red John.
> ===========================================
>
> I re-read my earlier response and must say I can see how you could
> interpret that I was saying it would have been okay to buckshoot RJ. My
> bad. I didn't mean to infer that. Having said that...I doubt the video
> will be clear enough (after all this IS fiction...the writers can make
> it up as they like) to determine whether Red John made a move for his
> gun or not. In such close quarters, it becomes Jane's word against his.
> Oh...wait...RJ is dead isn't he?
True, a killer can always take the stand and make up whatever story they
want about the person they killed, but how often does that work?
Especially when in order to do it, Jane would have to take the stand and
subject himself to cross examination. But this being fiction, I'm sure
Jane probably would testify.
How does that old saying go, something like, "Judge have mercy on me for
the murder of my parents, I'm an orphan."
The point is...the gun had to fall to
> the floor.
Was the gun loaded? Was it even a real gun? Or, was it a legally
registered gun belonging to a law enforcement official who had every
right to have it. Can the same be said of Jane? Given how he loves to
ignore the rules, he doesn't strike me as the type to get a concealed
weapon permit.
They have the cell phone call from the murderous fed. The
> testimony of THREE CBI agents...one of whom was shot.
>
> Obviously WE know this was pure vengeance by Patrick. Proving it would
> be very difficult. Who would even want to try to gain a conviction in
> this case?
>
>
Any DA who thinks s/he *can* get a conviction would definitely try.
That is their job afterall. I know they don't go after every cop that
unjustifiably kills a suspect but Jane isn't a cop and what the public
will see on video is clearly an unjustified shooting (even if we the
audience know differently). Remember, we the audience have a *lot* more
information than what the general public or a DA would have since we
*know* what Red John said. Everyone else will have to just take Jane's
word for it. Jane is a known liar and conman. The man is shot may be a
law abiding citizen (as far as the evidence shows) with a distraught
family screaming for justice.
Given that Jane tends to go out of his way to insult people and burn
bridges, I doubt if he'll have any friends (outside of the CBI) going
out of their way to make this go away. Especially if there's no proof
the man he shot was in fact Red John. Come to think of it, Jane
routinely accuses people of being "the killer" just to get a reaction
out of them. Wasn't there just an episode where the team burned some
bridges with some DA's office? They may be the ones to go after him
next season.
Dano
SPOILERS (there...ought to suffice)
<snip...>
A: I agree there will be an issue of proving the man was Red John. To add
a twist to this, let's assume regardless of whether or not the man was
Red John there is zero proof he is Red John. What if someone comes
forward and says the man went to the mall under duress and was told in
advance what to say. A wife for example, who says she was being held
hostage unless her husband complied with these instructions. Or even
just a wife who says her loving husband would never be involved in any
of this unless he was forced to by Red John.
Jane's going to have a hard time arguing he has a right to kill anyone
he believes is Red John.
---------------------------------------------------------
D: No real need to prove he was Red John. Just that he was a
co-conspirator to murder of police if nothing else. Phone records and
carrying the weapon should suffice.
> ===========================================
>
> I re-read my earlier response and must say I can see how you could
> interpret that I was saying it would have been okay to buckshoot RJ. My
> bad. I didn't mean to infer that. Having said that...I doubt the video
> will be clear enough (after all this IS fiction...the writers can make
> it up as they like) to determine whether Red John made a move for his
> gun or not. In such close quarters, it becomes Jane's word against his.
> Oh...wait...RJ is dead isn't he?
A: True, a killer can always take the stand and make up whatever story they
want about the person they killed, but how often does that work?
Especially when in order to do it, Jane would have to take the stand and
subject himself to cross examination. But this being fiction, I'm sure
Jane probably would testify.
How does that old saying go, something like, "Judge have mercy on me for
the murder of my parents, I'm an orphan."
-----------------------------------------------------------
D: This is a special case. And yes...of course it's fiction. So whatever
makes for the best drama right?
But in real life...had something like this happened...leaving three LEO's
dead (one being the shooter) and one other shot...in front of a another's
traumatized children...do you really suppose a DA would NOT take that into
consideration in even filing charges?
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
The point is...the gun had to fall to
> the floor.
A: Was the gun loaded? Was it even a real gun? Or, was it a legally
registered gun belonging to a law enforcement official who had every
right to have it. Can the same be said of Jane? Given how he loves to
ignore the rules, he doesn't strike me as the type to get a concealed
weapon permit.
-----------------------------------------------------
D: Again...as you yourself pointed out...this is FICTION. This is what the
writers decide it is...no?
===================================================
> They have the cell phone call from the murderous fed. The
> testimony of THREE CBI agents...one of whom was shot.
>
> Obviously WE know this was pure vengeance by Patrick. Proving it would
> be very difficult. Who would even want to try to gain a conviction in
> this case?
>
>
A: Any DA who thinks s/he *can* get a conviction would definitely try.
That is their job afterall. I know they don't go after every cop that
unjustifiably kills a suspect but Jane isn't a cop and what the public
will see on video is clearly an unjustified shooting (even if we the
audience know differently). Remember, we the audience have a *lot* more
information than what the general public or a DA would have since we
*know* what Red John said. Everyone else will have to just take Jane's
word for it. Jane is a known liar and conman. The man is shot may be a
law abiding citizen (as far as the evidence shows) with a distraught
family screaming for justice.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
D: First. Jane is a "former" conman/fake psychic who now is employed BY
the CBI. To the best of my knowledge he was never actually prosecuted for
anything before he took this job.
Your supposition that RJ may be a "law biding citizen" is pure nonsense. We
KNOW he is at the very least a co-conspirator with a serial killer ...if
not the mastermind himself. Please be somewhat thoughtful if not reasonable
about this.
==============================================
A: Given that Jane tends to go out of his way to insult people and burn
bridges, I doubt if he'll have any friends (outside of the CBI) going
out of their way to make this go away. Especially if there's no proof
the man he shot was in fact Red John. Come to think of it, Jane
routinely accuses people of being "the killer" just to get a reaction
out of them. Wasn't there just an episode where the team burned some
bridges with some DA's office? They may be the ones to go after him
next season.
----------------------------------------------------------------
D: If I grant you that...I insist that you consider that the burning of
bridges goes both ways. Does any DA's office want to nuke their own bridges
with the investigators they must work with every day? The investigators who
just had one of their own excellent agents shot down by an evil FBI guy who
had just shot and killed two other officers in cold blood.
Arthur Lipscomb
Prior to Jane shooting him, was there *any* evidence on the show, that
he was Red John? We have no knowledge what this guy's background is.
We don't even know for sure he *is* Red John. Personally, I think he is
unless the writers decide to retcon it later. But we have no *proof* of
it. There's a big difference between what you know and what you can prove.
> We KNOW he is at the very least a co-conspirator with a serial killer
> ...if not the mastermind himself. Please be somewhat thoughtful if not
> reasonable about this.
>
I'm not saying he isn't Red John, I think he was. I'm discussing what
is actually provable.
Just the other day on the Criminal Minds Suspect: Suspect Behavior
finale, they had a criminal who would kidnap a family member and then
force the relative to go to a public place and shoot someone. The
writers are free to make up whatever story they want. Red John is
suposed to be a super criminal master mind who has FBI agents doing his
bidding and others committing suicide. I think it's fair to say he
might have the resources to have a clean record or send someone else in
his place to convince Jane the imposter is Red John. Having John kill
the imposter may have been a contingency plan from the start. The
writers are always free to retcon it however they want should they later
decide he wasn't Red John.
> ==============================================
>
> A: Given that Jane tends to go out of his way to insult people and burn
> bridges, I doubt if he'll have any friends (outside of the CBI) going
> out of their way to make this go away. Especially if there's no proof
> the man he shot was in fact Red John. Come to think of it, Jane
> routinely accuses people of being "the killer" just to get a reaction
> out of them. Wasn't there just an episode where the team burned some
> bridges with some DA's office? They may be the ones to go after him
> next season.
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
> D: If I grant you that...I insist that you consider that the burning of
> bridges goes both ways. Does any DA's office want to nuke their own
> bridges with the investigators they must work with every day?
Easy enough to answer, in the real world, has any police officer ever
been prosecuted? More than one? More than two? More than... We know
it does happen.
Within the context of the show, I believe it *already* happened. And
it's probably that particular DA or office that would pursue Jane.
The
> investigators who just had one of their own excellent agents shot down
> by an evil FBI guy who had just shot and killed two other officers in
> cold blood.
>
>
Next season they'll focus on the fall out from the finale. They can
sweep it under the rug and move on or they can have ongoing consequences
for Jane's actions. Based on an interview some one linked to the other
day, it looks like they will take the on going consequences route. We
just have to wait and see. I'm fine with it either way.
Dano
"Arthur Lipscomb" wrote in message news:irojg5$9di$1...@dont-email.me...
On 5/27/2011 7:55 AM, Dano wrote:
Prior to Jane shooting him, was there *any* evidence on the show, that
he was Red John? We have no knowledge what this guy's background is.
We don't even know for sure he *is* Red John. Personally, I think he is
unless the writers decide to retcon it later. But we have no *proof* of
it. There's a big difference between what you know and what you can prove.
I'm not saying he isn't Red John, I think he was. I'm discussing what
is actually provable.
Just the other day on the Criminal Minds Suspect: Suspect Behavior
finale, they had a criminal who would kidnap a family member and then
force the relative to go to a public place and shoot someone. The
writers are free to make up whatever story they want. Red John is
suposed to be a super criminal master mind who has FBI agents doing his
bidding and others committing suicide. I think it's fair to say he
might have the resources to have a clean record or send someone else in
his place to convince Jane the imposter is Red John. Having John kill
the imposter may have been a contingency plan from the start. The
writers are always free to retcon it however they want should they later
decide he wasn't Red John.
Next season they'll focus on the fall out from the finale. They can
sweep it under the rug and move on or they can have ongoing consequences
for Jane's actions. Based on an interview some one linked to the other
day, it looks like they will take the on going consequences route. We
just have to wait and see. I'm fine with it either way.
===================================================
There was no evidence whatsoever on anyone. And obviously we never met this
character. So it is whatever the writers say it is. The only real evidence
we know about at this point is that the FBI/fiancé dude was a stone cold
killer and conspirator with this fellow we THINK is RJ. That phone call is
pretty damning evidence though...along with the CBI agents involved in this
ongoing investigation of course. The writers have quite a bit of space to
fill in a variety of ways. I'm interested in what way they choose to go.
There remain a number of obvious questions and I think it's all up to them.
By handling the finale this way, they can spin it wherever they want. With
all the confederates RJ used...whether this fellow was him or not, I'm
guessing there are some remaining...perhaps even still in the CBI. Stay
tuned.
KalElFan
> ... this screams out for some explanation for the
> suicidal nature of the co-conspirators...like a shred of
> motivation for ANY of them. How does a seemingly normal,
> accomplished, and charming FBI agent go psycho? Quite a
> stretch in itself...but are they leaving that unexplained?
Red John, almost Super(natural)Criminal. He can brainwash
people, or have them kill themselves, or think they were
dead as he did with the psychic and so on. We've seen
Patrick Jane hypnotize and figure things out and do uncanny
things. Red John was on the same level or even higher. His
minions had no "motivation" per se, they were simply under
Red John's control.
LaRoche could also have conceivably been under control
of Red John when he shot the suspect. Laroche, Bertram
and Cho could all have been programmed to know a line
or three of Blake, just as a Red John gag. But I gave other
explanations for those, and it avoids the silliness of every
single action having to be attributed to Red John.
If Red John's not dead, I see no point to that the rest of the
way. He'll become Sylar cubed. The only plausible purpose
would be revealing Patrick to be insane and Red John his
Mr. Hyde in the series finale. That'd be uber-stupid IMO, but
it's about the only thing that could "top" this season 3 finale
for impact. We'd have to wait four years for it and it'd nuke
the series in the meantime. Let. It. End. Here.
Hunter
But the video and likely at least one eyewitness (a blond woman sitting
at a table RJ and Jane passed) will show that the alleged RJ was walking
away from Jane. Jane called him back and pursued him saying
"Please.....wait" which could negate a self defense argument. I
rechecked the scene. The gun didn't fall out of the paper so that will
make it more difficult for Jane to argue self defense unfortunately.
> Oh...wait...RJ is dead
> isn't he?
If it was RJ which will have to be proven to the court (hell some
viewers aren't sure); but in anycase it will be up to Jane to show self
defense whether or not he was Red John.
>
> The point is...the gun had to fall to the floor.
As I said above I rewatched the scene. The gun didn't come out of the
paper. He will be in obvious possession of it but with the victim
walking away from Jane and Jane calling him back it would be hard to
prove Jane was under duress. Indeed the Prosecution can turn the tables
on Jane.
> They have the
> cell phone call from the murderous fed.
Doesn't matter. All that will show is that he was in contact with the
victim. One has to prove the victim was RJ and it will not be easy, if
it all, for those calls to mean anything.
> The testimony of THREE CBI
> agents...one of whom was shot.
Again, that doesn't do anything that proves that the victim was RJ or
even if the victim, whomever it maybe, had anything to do with
O'Laughlin past calling him and being called by him. And if it comes out
that Lisbon and Jane hid Hightower, a wanted fugitive, that will hurt
their credibility. After all if they will go to such lengths to protect
a wanted fugitive, perjuring themselves on the stand to save another
friend would be nothing as the prosecution will argue.
>
> Obviously WE know this was pure vengeance by Patrick. Proving it would be
> very difficult. Who would even want to try to gain a conviction in this
> case?
That is not the point, It doesn't matter what we know. Yes we know the
truth (and many Mentalist fans aren't even sure that was RJ anyway) but
The Prosecution doesn't know, the other CBI Agents can't know, The jury
doesn't know what we the audience and Lisbon and her team knows.
Again, yes it is a given that Jane will get off. No Jane no show, but
given what we know now about the case looking at it OBJECTIVELY, Jane
will have a long battle when he goes to court. The key will be proving
that was indeed Red John or at the very least a minion and if we the all
seeing viewer can't be sure a jury sure can't with what we know now.
--