# The Mentalist: Season Six "Red John: The Final Chapter"



## astrohip (Jan 7, 2003)

Since this is the season we will discover who Red John is, I thought we should have a thread to discuss it as the episodes unfold.

*** Spoilers allowed up to the most recently aired episode ***

BTW, there was already one thread on the season premiere (S6E1) located here.


----------



## busyba (Feb 5, 2003)

I guess Bertam, McCallister and Smith are probably RJ minions.

Partridge is dead, so it's probably not him (even though I still think RJs voice sounds just like him, to the point where it's almost unfair that it's not him).

The really made Haffner look super hinky in episode 2, so it's probably not him. 

I think it's Kirkland. He's been my pick all along, after Partridge (although my picking Partridge was only because of the voice).


----------



## JYoung (Jan 16, 2002)

busyba said:


> Partridge is dead, so it's probably not him (even though I still think RJs voice sounds just like him, to the point where it's almost unfair that it's not him).


I know we had CSI types saying that Partridge is dead but did we see a body?
Did we?


----------



## busyba (Feb 5, 2003)

JYoung said:


> I know we had CSI types saying that Partridge is dead but did we see a body?
> Did we?


I don't think we did, but Jane was in the house, no? I'm sure he did.

Also, the first responders (after Lisbon) were a bunch of local PD LEOs, so I think pulling a fake-death stunt in that instance would be improbable.


----------



## verdugan (Sep 9, 2003)

busyba said:


> I don't think we did, but Jane was in the house, no? I'm sure he did.
> 
> Also, the first responders (after Lisbon) were a bunch of local PD LEOs, so I think pulling a fake-death stunt in that instance would be improbable.


Well, they did take over an hour to arrive when Lisbon asked for back up, and red John has more moles than the CIA, so it's possible that somebody on sac pd helped with the deception.

In other words, the writers could pull this out of their, you know what.


----------



## JYoung (Jan 16, 2002)

busyba said:


> I don't think we did, but Jane was in the house, no? I'm sure he did.
> 
> Also, the first responders (after Lisbon) were a bunch of local PD LEOs, so I think pulling a fake-death stunt in that instance would be improbable.


That's what Red John WANTS you to think!


----------



## Malcontent (Sep 5, 2004)

busyba said:


> Partridge is dead, so it's probably not him (even though I still think RJs voice sounds just like him, to the point where it's almost unfair that it's not him).
> 
> I think it's Kirkland. He's been my pick all along, after Partridge (although my picking Partridge was only because of the voice).


For some reason RJs voice sounds like the actor Garret Dillahunt from 'Raising Hope' to me. <shrug>


----------



## secondclaw (Oct 3, 2004)

Is it at all possible that RJ is several (or all) of the suspects? That's why 'he' appears to be all-knowing? With voice modulation maybe it's possible to pull it off. Maybe Partridge was one of them but was removed because it became a liability. I know it's a stretch.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

They certainly hinted at that this week, with the three suspects talking menacingly among themselves.

Probably a red herring, but you never know.


----------



## betts4 (Dec 27, 2005)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> They certainly hinted at that this week, with the three suspects talking menacingly among themselves.
> 
> Probably a *red *herring, but you never know.


I see what you did there.


----------



## eddyj (Jun 20, 2002)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> They certainly hinted at that this week, with the three suspects talking menacingly among themselves.
> 
> Probably a red herring, but you never know.


I had the same thought, and the same reaction (too obviously done).


----------



## busyba (Feb 5, 2003)

Red John is all of us!


----------



## loubob57 (Mar 19, 2001)

Red John is ... *PATRICK JANE!*

Wouldn't that be fun - not.


----------



## betts4 (Dec 27, 2005)

loubob57 said:


> Red John is ... *PATRICK JANE!*
> 
> Wouldn't that be fun - not.


I think fans have been wondering this for years.


----------



## busyba (Feb 5, 2003)

betts4 said:


> I think fans have been wondering this for years.


To the point where the showrunner has gone on record to say that Patrick is _not_ RJ.


----------



## Dirk Legume (Nov 29, 2004)

Malcontent said:


> For some reason RJs voice sounds like the actor Garret Dillahunt from 'Raising Hope' to me. <shrug>


I thought this too. I have convinced myself that it was him. And I believe he has played bad guys in the past.

Sooooo...If he shows up in an episode...


----------



## loubob57 (Mar 19, 2001)

Dirk Legume said:


> I thought this too. I have convinced myself that it was him. And I believe he has played bad guys in the past.
> 
> Sooooo...If he shows up in an episode...


He was a Terminator. That's a bad guy isn't it?


----------



## bacevedo (Oct 31, 2003)

JYoung said:


> I know we had CSI types saying that Partridge is dead but did we see a body?
> Did we?


I agree, we never did actually see the body. In every other Red John murder, the body was always shown with the smiley face nearby. In this case, the body wasn't shown and the blood smiley was put on Lisbon's face. I think there is something to that.

We saw Jane running from the house asking for water, and when he got it, Lisbon was already in the ambulance. Why was Jane running from the house? Maybe he saw that it wasn't Partridge. I thought maybe he was taking a sample of the blood from Lisbon's face for later use to see who's blood it really was.

If Partridge was dead, why didn't they show how he died? He was still alive when Lisbon was there, so what did Red John actually do to him?


----------



## mr.unnatural (Feb 2, 2006)

Red John is really the smoke monster from Lost. 

FWIW, when CBS moved this show to Sunday night they killed it for me. I just got tired of having to deal with NFL overruns and having to pad recordings by an hour. Fox has the right idea for Sunday night scheduling and learned how to handle extended games the correct way. CBS just needs to get a clue.

OTOH, I do still watch The Good Wife. Patrick Jane was getting to be just too much of a wimp to keep me interested. I'm surprised somebody hasn't kicked the crap out of him by now for being such a smart ass.


----------



## busyba (Feb 5, 2003)

mr.unnatural said:


> FWIW, when CBS moved this show to Sunday night they killed it for me. I just got tired of having to deal with NFL overruns and having to pad recordings by an hour. Fox has the right idea for Sunday night scheduling and learned how to handle extended games the correct way. CBS just needs to get a clue.


My understanding is that the problem isn't CBS not having a clue, the problem is 60 Minutes having too much juice to let CBS get creative. 60M refuses to yield its 7pm timeslot, even if it means it sometimes gets delayed by occasional football overruns.


----------



## mr.unnatural (Feb 2, 2006)

busyba said:


> My understanding is that the problem isn't CBS not having a clue, the problem is 60 Minutes having too much juice to let CBS get creative. 60M refuses to yield its 7pm timeslot, even if it means it sometimes gets delayed by occasional football overruns.


That would be fine if 60 Minutes actually aired at 7PM. The reality is that it airs anywhere between 7 and 8PM and sometimes even later. If there's a late afternoon game on CBS then everything is pretty much guaranteed to get pushed back. I believe the later games are now starting at 4:30PM instead of 4 so that there's no overlap with the earlier 1:00 games. I stopped watching 60 Minutes over 15 years ago due to their screwed up schedule.


----------



## astrohip (Jan 7, 2003)

Potential episode title spoiler (but no real spoiler info; just an episode title):



Spoiler



Episode 9 (S6E9) is "My Blue Heaven". Since Mentalist episodes are usually red based, could this be a sign that something will change in (or has changed by) ep9?


----------



## steve614 (May 1, 2006)

bacevedo said:


> We saw Jane running from the house asking for water, and when he got it, Lisbon was already in the ambulance. Why was Jane running from the house? Maybe he saw that it wasn't Partridge. I thought maybe he was taking a sample of the blood from Lisbon's face for later use to see who's blood it really was.


Jane just wanted to clean up Lisbon's face. He was so appalled that RJ would do that to her, that he rushed to get the water to accomplish that goal.


----------



## bacevedo (Oct 31, 2003)

steve614 said:


> Jane just wanted to clean up Lisbon's face. He was so appalled that RJ would do that to her, that he rushed to get the water to accomplish that goal.


Mabye that's what we are supposed to think, but it just seemed odd to me that he came running from the house asking for water. I thought he would run back in to the house to give her water but then she was already in the ambulance. Maybe I'm reading too much into it, but it just struck me as odd at the time.

It's going to be kind of annoying to have them give each suspect something that makes them the likely "Red John" as they did in the latest episode with the sheriff. Instead of trying to figure out who the real Red John is, I am just going to wait until the reveal as there is so much misdirection.


----------



## busyba (Feb 5, 2003)

Maybe they're all Red John, like in Murder on the Orient Express.


----------



## Church AV Guy (Jan 19, 2005)

steve614 said:


> Jane just wanted to clean up Lisbon's face. He was so appalled that RJ would do that to her, that he rushed to get the water to accomplish that goal.


I agree that he wanted to clean the blood off her face, but I'm not exactly sure why. Was he protecting her from the trauma, or did he not want anyone to know except RJ and himself, hoping one of them would slip up and say something about it.


----------



## john4200 (Nov 1, 2009)

Church AV Guy said:


> I agree that he wanted to clean the blood off her face, but I'm not exactly sure why. Was he protecting her from the trauma, or did he not want anyone to know except RJ and himself, hoping one of them would slip up and say something about it.


Obviously not the latter.


----------



## Shakhari (Jan 2, 2005)

One more suspect gone. I was a bit surprised, because I had him pegged at least as a minion, but it was a nice twist that Jane isn't the only one seeking revenge.

I also thought it was interesting that they addressed the "Patrick Jane is Red John" rumor too.


----------



## busyba (Feb 5, 2003)

I imagine we'll be seeing the actor sometime in the future playing the twin brother.

So if the FBI agent is part of the Tyger conspiracy, then the sheriff and Bertram probably are as well (based on that meeting the 3 of them were having in Bertram's office?), and probably none of them are Red John (if any of them were, I would think the body language of the other 2 in the meeting would have been completely different). So it's either Reed or Styles.

My money is on Reed.

So what was that conversation between Jane and Kirkland after Kirkland was taken into custody about? Kirkland said he had stuff to say, but couldn't say it there and that Jane should come see him some time and Jane said okay. But both of them _had_ to have known that Kirkland was a dead man walking. Why not tell Jane everything right then?


----------



## Shakhari (Jan 2, 2005)

busyba said:


> So it's either Reed or Styles.
> 
> My money is on Reed.


You mean Ray Haffner? It's certainly beginning to look that way. Styles certainly seems to have some sort of connection to Red John and Red John has some sort of connection to Visualize, but I can't see the head of the cult being able to take off and kill people whenever he wants without anyone noticing. Plus Ray more closely resembles the physical description of Red John we've heard. Styles does not.


----------



## verdugan (Sep 9, 2003)

busyba said:


> But both of them had to have known that Kirkland was a dead man walking. Why not tell Jane everything right then?


Totally agree. They know red John has minions in law enforcement, and they've killed witnesses/prisioners before (one inside the CBI building,) and they really thought they'd get a chance to talk later?

If I was Kirkland, I wouldn't have gotten out of the van.


----------



## busyba (Feb 5, 2003)

Shakhari said:


> You mean Ray Haffner?


Yes. I keep forgetting that Reed is the actor's name, not the character's.


----------



## john4200 (Nov 1, 2009)

verdugan said:


> If I was Kirkland, I wouldn't have gotten out of the van.


I don't think that was an option, since Kirkland surely realized the driver was complicit as well.

But running was stupid. Kirkland should have come to the edge of the van, got Reede to look away for a second (maybe by looking intently behind Reede), and then jumped on Reede and maybe used the chain as a weapon. Then get Reede's gun and shoot the driver. Probably worse than a 50/50 chance at surviving, but that is better than a near 100% chance of dying if he runs.


----------



## john4200 (Nov 1, 2009)

busyba said:


> So if the FBI agent is part of the Tyger conspiracy, then the sheriff and Bertram probably are as well (based on that meeting the 3 of them were having in Bertram's office?), and probably none of them are Red John (if any of them were, I would think the body language of the other 2 in the meeting would have been completely different). So it's either Reed or Styles.


The other members of the conspiracy might not necessarily know who RJ is, so I'm not sure what you are getting at with body language.

Last season, before the seven were revealed, I thought someone high up from Visualize was the most likely suspect, since RJ has such fanatical devotion with many of his minions, as well as apparent connections with politicians and law enforcement. But I did not think it was Stiles himself. It could still be Ray Haffner, who is a member of Visualize. But RJ is also heavily invested in Tyger, Tyger, and I don't recall seeing any evidence that Haffner is in the Tyger conspiracy. Maybe it is Haffner working together with one or more of the Tyger conspiracy people.

But this Tyger conspiracy is interesting, since it provides the kind of connections and information that would help RJ do what he does. Although it does not easily explain the fanatical devotion of his minions. Reede did say something about it being bigger than Kirkland knew, so maybe there is something else that could explain that.

Here is my suspect list, with the most likely first:

Haffner (with a partner, maybe Bertram, Reede, or Mcallister)
Bertram
Reede
Mcallister
Stiles

Now that we know that Kirkland got a fake list, I am at a loss how to explain RJ knowing the seven suspects. I suppose some minion could still have been carefully watching Jane's room before and after Kirkland stole the fake list (hidden camera?). There was probably enough information in that room, over the many weeks Jane was working there, to deduce the suspect list, but RJ or minions would have to have gone through days and days of footage to figure it out. And Jane should have found a hidden camera, as obsessive as he is. So I'm baffled.


----------



## verdugan (Sep 9, 2003)

john4200 said:


> I don't think that was an option, since Kirkland surely realized the driver was complicit as well.
> 
> But running was stupid. Kirkland should have come to the edge of the van, got Reede to look away for a second (maybe by looking intently behind Reede), and then jumped on Reede and maybe used the chain as a weapon. Then get Reede's gun and shoot the driver. Probably worse than a 50/50 chance at surviving, but that is better than a near 100% chance of dying if he runs.


He either could've have fought like you said, or forced the FBI agent to shoot him in the van therefore making it harder to say that he was shot while escaping.

Anything other than let himself be killed like a siting duck.


----------



## verdugan (Sep 9, 2003)

Oh and Van Pelt sure lost all her pregnacy weight. No need for a "Is Amanda Righetti fat?" thread!


----------



## jeepair (Apr 22, 2004)

I don't see why the Homeland agent, Kirkland?, would take the first body and drive it all the way back to wherever he dumped it. Since he was in the woods he would have dumped it there. The story should have started with several people previously prosecuted? apprehended? by CBI have disappeared.


----------



## late for dinner (May 17, 2013)

verdugan said:


> Oh and Van Pelt sure lost all her pregnacy weight. No need for a "Is Amanda Righetti fat?" thread!


nice abs, particularly impressive after have a baby not that long ago.


----------



## T-Wolves (Aug 22, 2000)

As far as I'm concerned, Bradley Whitford was Red John. The writers have just been jerking us around since Jane killed him a couple seasons back in a very satisfying season-ending episode. 

I can't wait until this season is over and they hopefully finally move on.


----------



## IDSmoker (Apr 11, 2004)

Not sure how I feel about them using the "Tiger, Tiger" conspiracy to provide the show with an over arching 'quest' after Red John has been dealt with, as seems to be their intention.

Or am I reading too much into this?


----------



## ADG (Aug 20, 2003)

IDSmoker said:


> Not sure how I feel about them using the "Tiger, Tiger" conspiracy to provide the show with an over arching 'quest' after Red John has been dealt with, as seems to be their intention.
> 
> Or am I reading too much into this?


No, I read it the same way. All of these shows feel they need a "mythology" or side story to keep everyone's interest. I can trace it at least back to "Profiler" & "Millennium" in 1996.


----------



## busyba (Feb 5, 2003)

IDSmoker said:


> Not sure how I feel about them using the "Tiger, Tiger" conspiracy to provide the show with an over arching 'quest' after Red John has been dealt with, as seems to be their intention.
> 
> Or am I reading too much into this?


That was my interpretation as well, that once they kill RJ this season, they'll need something to do next season, and that's what TT is.


----------



## busyba (Feb 5, 2003)

[pedant]BTW... it's "Tyger, Tyger", not "Tiger, Tiger"[/pedant]


----------



## eddyj (Jun 20, 2002)

IDSmoker said:


> Not sure how I feel about them using the "Tiger, Tiger" conspiracy to provide the show with an over arching 'quest' after Red John has been dealt with, as seems to be their intention.
> 
> Or am I reading too much into this?





ADG said:


> No, I read it the same way. All of these shows feel they need a "mythology" or side story to keep everyone's interest. I can trace it at least back to "Profiler" & "Millennium" in 1996.





busyba said:


> That was my interpretation as well, that once they kill RJ this season, they'll need something to do next season, and that's what TT is.


I read it the same exact way, and mentioned it to my wife, but I was confused, since I thought that this was the last season.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

eddyj said:


> I read it the same exact way, and mentioned it to my wife, but I was confused, since I thought that this was the last season.


There has been no hint of that. (Season structure spoilers)


Spoiler



The Red John story will wrap up in the next very few episodes, and then the show will take off in a somewhat new direction, with some cast changes. They're clearly still in it for the long haul, since they're rebooting/reorganizing/restructuring/re-whatevering instead of just dragging Red John out to the season's end.


----------



## eddyj (Jun 20, 2002)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> There has been no hint of that. (Season structure spoilers)
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> ...


I'm not sure why I thought it was the last season.


----------



## WO312 (Jan 24, 2003)

eddyj said:


> I'm not sure why I thought it was the last season.


You were just HOPING it was the last season.


----------



## Shakhari (Jan 2, 2005)

ADG said:


> No, I read it the same way. All of these shows feel they need a "mythology" or side story to keep everyone's interest. I can trace it at least back to "Profiler" & "Millennium" in 1996.


The X Files before them ...


----------



## Fl_Gulfer (May 27, 2005)

I also read somewhere that this was the last season. And as far as I'm concerned after last episode they need to just end the show. All this Tiger, Tiger crap just don't make sense. The wife and I just looked at each other after the show and said why did we waste our time with this show.


----------



## ClutchBrake (Sep 5, 2001)

The Tyger has been part of the show for years. Red John quoted it to Jane when he saved his life.


----------



## john4200 (Nov 1, 2009)

ClutchBrake said:


> The Tyger has been part of the show for years. Red John quoted it to Jane when he saved his life.


Right. I was surprised to see all the posts from people who did not seem to know this.

Also, in season 3, Bertram quoted another William Blake poem to LaRoche, which made it look like Bertram might be RJ, way back then, since RJ had already been established as a William Blake fan by him quoting Tyger, Tyger. And Todd Johnson's dying words in the hospital, spoken to Jane, were "Tyger, Tyger". Then this season, Partridge's last words, spoken to Lisbon, were "Tyger, Tyger".


----------



## busyba (Feb 5, 2003)

So now, the question is... is RJ part of the TT conspiracy, or was he just giving Jane a heads up about them?


----------



## john4200 (Nov 1, 2009)

busyba said:


> So now, the question is... is RJ part of the TT conspiracy, or was he just giving Jane a heads up about them?


I think RJ needs all the help he can get to pull off the things that he does, so I lean towards him being part of the Tyger conspiracy (as well as being associated with Visualize). But that does not necessarily mean that everyone in the Tyger conspiracy knows about RJ.


----------



## smbaker (May 24, 2003)

I'm disappointed that "Tyger Tyger" has turned into the secret passphrase for some law enforcement conspiracy group. It feels cheap and out of place, and a retcon. It doesn't seem to fit the original introduction of the phrase into the series very well.

My money is on Reede Smith as Red John, only because Brett Stiles is too obvious a choice.


----------



## astrohip (Jan 7, 2003)

So who has a tattoo?



smbaker said:


> I'm disappointed that "Tyger Tyger" has turned into the secret passphrase for some law enforcement conspiracy group. It feels cheap and out of place, and a retcon. It doesn't seem to fit the original introduction of the phrase into the series very well.


Which leads to my confusion. I thought Tiger Tiger was a catch-phrase for RJ for all these years. But now it's the secret handshake for a LEO cabal? Or am I missing something?

Also, not sure what's going on with the driver who shot <forgot his name> who was escaping but not escaping. What's up with the PTSD? Plus, there is no way that entire incident passes muster, if *anyone* takes a closer look.


----------



## john4200 (Nov 1, 2009)

astrohip said:


> Which leads to my confusion. I thought Tiger Tiger was a catch-phrase for RJ for all these years. But now it's the secret handshake for a LEO cabal? Or am I missing something?


It is Tyger, not Tiger. Anyway, we now know that it is both. As busyba mentioned in this thread, either RJ is a part of the Tyger conspiracy (most likely I think), or he was trying to lead Patrick to it. As for why RJ would tell Patrick about Tyger, I have no clue.



astrohip said:


> Also, not sure what's going on with the driver who shot <forgot his name> who was escaping but not escaping. What's up with the PTSD? Plus, there is no way that entire incident passes muster, if *anyone* takes a closer look.


It's a good thing for them that they have lots of Tyger connections to cover stuff like that up.


----------



## Shakhari (Jan 2, 2005)

astrohip said:


> So who has a tattoo?


I'm not sure any of the suspects do. There were three dots of blood on the PI's arm as she was dying. They made a big show of Jane smearing them.


----------



## busyba (Feb 5, 2003)

I have to give Red John credit for knowing Cho's type. The girl he used for the honey trap was _very_ similar to the hooker that he hooked up with a season or two ago. She had the same look and mannerisms.


----------



## busyba (Feb 5, 2003)

And they seem to be trying really hard to make it look like Haffner is RJ, which makes me no longer think that it's him.


----------



## Alfer (Aug 7, 2003)

I told my wife that I'm about 90% sure that VanPelt(sp) and/or hubby will be targeted by RJ before this is all done. They are really starting to push the lovey dovey marriage stuff a bit too much lately. Hubby telling Cho how deeply in love he is and can't live without her blah blah. Same kind of stuff coming from her to some extent. 

I think RJ will hit where it hurts Jane, that being his closest friend(s) that he works with.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

busyba said:


> I have to give Red John credit for knowing Cho's type. The girl he used for the honey trap was _very_ similar to the hooker that he hooked up with a season or two ago. She had the same look and mannerisms.


Heh, I didn't notice because both actors are known to me and thus I had no trouble seeing each as herself. But you're right.

Of course, it's long been established that Red John is all-seeing and all-knowing...

Hey! That's it! God is Red John!

Although he's not on Patrick's list, so that wouldn't really be fair...


----------



## debtoine (May 17, 2001)

busyba said:


> I have to give Red John credit for knowing Cho's type. The girl he used for the honey trap was _very_ similar to the hooker that he hooked up with a season or two ago. She had the same look and mannerisms.


I had the same thought!!



Alfer said:


> I told my wife that I'm about 90% sure that VanPelt(sp) and/or hubby will be targeted by RJ before this is all done. They are really starting to push the lovey dovey marriage stuff a bit too much lately. Hubby telling Cho how deeply in love he is and can't live without her blah blah. Same kind of stuff coming from her to some extent.
> 
> I think RJ will hit where it hurts Jane, that being his closest friend(s) that he works with.


Oh, I hope not!

Toine


----------



## Church AV Guy (Jan 19, 2005)

busyba said:


> [pedant]BTW... it's "Tyger, Tyger", not "Tiger, Tiger"[/pedant]





john4200 said:


> It is Tyger, not Tiger...


I had the close captioning on this week, and in every case, it clearly was spelled "TIGER" not "TYGER". I guess they don't care how Blake spelled it, and neither does The Oxford Book of English Verse:

http://www.bartleby.com/101/489.html

Perhaps, he said didactically, we need to be a bit less pedantic. 

I can see that they are going to change the show's direction just slightly. After Red John has been finally dealt with, Patrick will be going after the corrupt organization within the law enforcement community. As has been speculated here, likely because the "organization" will kill off some of the people close to Jane, and he'll still have the revenge motive, redirected.

Will the show still have ratings after RJ is gone? I wonder, because they are pretty meager now.


----------



## jeepair (Apr 22, 2004)

busyba said:


> I have to give Red John credit for knowing Cho's type. The girl he used for the honey trap was _very_ similar to the hooker that he hooked up with a season or two ago. She had the same look and mannerisms.


Yes, but was she even necessary? Any of the RJ suspects could have easily bugged the desk themselves.


----------



## ADG (Aug 20, 2003)

Alfer said:


> I told my wife that I'm about 90% sure that VanPelt(sp) and/or hubby will be targeted by RJ before this is all done. They are really starting to push the lovey dovey marriage stuff a bit too much lately. Hubby telling Cho how deeply in love he is and can't live without her blah blah. Same kind of stuff coming from her to some extent.
> 
> I think RJ will hit where it hurts Jane, that being his closest friend(s) that he works with.


Same here - like a young boxer signaling his punch, the writers are setting us up for the loss of a series regular. I think VanPelt is on her way out.


----------



## john4200 (Nov 1, 2009)

ADG said:


> Same here - like a young boxer signaling his punch, the writers are setting us up for the loss of a series regular. I think VanPelt is on her way out.


I'll take Rigsby over Grace as the one who dies.


----------



## loubob57 (Mar 19, 2001)

john4200 said:


> I'll take Rigsby over Grace as the one who dies.


Owain Yeoman is probably tired of talking in an American accent anyway.


----------



## dwit (May 5, 2004)

Alfer said:


> I told my wife that I'm about 90% sure that VanPelt(sp) and/or hubby will be targeted by RJ before this is all done. They are really starting to push the lovey dovey marriage stuff a bit too much lately. Hubby telling Cho how deeply in love he is and can't live without her blah blah. Same kind of stuff coming from her to some extent.
> 
> I think RJ will hit where it hurts Jane, that being his closest friend(s) that he works with.


That's why I was sure he had killed Lisbon, and wonder why he did not? If he wasn't going to kill her, they could have just done without that part.


----------



## ADG (Aug 20, 2003)

john4200 said:


> I'll take Rigsby over Grace as the one who dies.


Two reasons I'm thinking it's her:

1) She just had a baby and may very well want to spend more time at home and

2) It's Rigsby saying how happy he is. Losing her would be devastating - killing him does not fit in with the dialog up to this point.


----------



## IDSmoker (Apr 11, 2004)

ADG said:


> Two reasons I'm thinking it's her: 1) She just had a baby and may very well want to spend more time at home and 2) It's Rigsby saying how happy he is. Losing her would be devastating - killing him does not fit in with the dialog up to this point.


I'm going to be very disappointed if they kill her off, Van Pelt makes up a significant portion of the reason I'm still watching.


----------



## RickyL (Sep 13, 2004)

busyba said:


> I have to give Red John credit for knowing Cho's type. The girl he used for the honey trap was _very_ similar to the hooker that he hooked up with a season or two ago. She had the same look and mannerisms.


I was so hoping Penny was going to be reoccurring.


----------



## smbaker (May 24, 2003)

astrohip said:


> Which leads to my confusion. I thought Tiger Tiger was a catch-phrase for RJ for all these years. But now it's the secret handshake for a LEO cabal? Or am I missing something?


It feels like a retcon to me, setting up a post-RJ foe.

From what they're setting up, I think the secret law enforcement cabal is going to be red john stooges, if not the true believer / follower types, then at least people who were blackmailed into assisting him.



ADG said:


> Two reasons I'm thinking it's her:


I think it is her also. She just doesn't feel as integrated with the series post-pregnancy as she used to be. Plus, Rigsby will be a better character to act out the grief of losing VanPelt than vice-versa.

I definitely sense the death of a major character coming up.


----------



## astrohip (Jan 7, 2003)

Spoilers as to the future of certain specific actors on this show. NOT what happens to him/her/them on the show/plot/storyline, but casting decisions:



Spoiler



The showrunner had announced before this season started that Owain Yeoman (Wayne Rigsby) and Amanda Righetti (Grace Van Pelt) would be leaving sometime during this season (2013/2014). He didn't give any plot specifics, just that he felt it was time to make some changes, and since the Red John story was going to conclude, this seemed like a good time to make some character changes. He also said one or two new characters would probably be introduced.

I don't have any links for this, but it was publicly announced in several of the TV news sites. A search should find it, should you desire.


----------



## bacevedo (Oct 31, 2003)

astrohip said:


> Spoilers as to the future of certain specific actors on this show. NOT what happens to him/her/them on the show/plot/storyline, but casting decisions:





Spoiler



It would make sense that they would move on after they have pretty much wrapped up their storyline. Now that they are married, there is no more tension in their relationship.

It's possible they won't be killed off but instead they decide to retire or move due to catching Red John or being freaked out by something that will happen with them while catching him. It will be interesting to see.

It would not be satisfying to me if they kill one/both of them off after they spent so long getting them together.


----------



## busyba (Feb 5, 2003)

Spoiler



If Joss Whedon were the show runner, I'd fully expect most of them to die. But he's not.  So I'd be surprised if, say, Van Pelt were to get killed, although I agree that there definitely seems to be a cadence to the show right now that would suggest something like that happening


----------



## madscientist (Nov 12, 2003)

ADG said:


> Same here - like a young boxer signaling his punch, the writers are setting us up for the loss of a series regular. I think VanPelt is on her way out.


To me that seems too dark for this show. Even with Jane's dark past and outlook, the show itself doesn't seem like one where they'd murder a character like VanPelt.


----------



## JYoung (Jan 16, 2002)

busyba said:


> And they seem to be trying really hard to make it look like Haffner is RJ, which makes me no longer think that it's him.


Since they have hinted in the past that Haffner is sweet on Lisbon, it might explain why Red John didn't kill Lisbon at Partridge's.

Assuming he is Red John, of course.


----------



## astrohip (Jan 7, 2003)

*Here is the Facebook update from The Mentalist. It appears it was running so late, due to NFL football, they decided to run a repeat instead. *










As we've discussed ad infinitum in other threads, CBS is just killing themselves with this. They hype this episode ALL WEEK LONG, then bump it.


----------



## eddyj (Jun 20, 2002)

And it will probably mess with next week's recording, since the DVR thinks it already recorded it.


----------



## john4200 (Nov 1, 2009)

Hmmm. I saw the new episode, S06E06 "Fire and Brimstone", but not from a normal broadcast of it.

Did the network broadcast the new episode anywhere?


----------



## john4200 (Nov 1, 2009)

By the way, did anyone catch in last weeks episode (S06E05), the conclusion Jane jumped to -- that the person who killed that woman was RJ? Why couldn't it have been one of RJ's minions?


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

john4200 said:


> Hmmm. I saw the new episode, S06E06 "Fire and Brimstone", but not from a normal broadcast of it.
> 
> Did the network broadcast the new episode anywhere?


No, they canceled it at the last minute, after it had already gotten out to the "alternate" sites.


----------



## busyba (Feb 5, 2003)

Interestingly, the promo for "next weeks episode" that CBS ran after the episode last night was clearly for the subsequent episode after the one that _should_ have aired.

From the promo:


Spoiler



They said that there were "only three suspects remaining", and they quickly flashed three shots of three of the suspects with "three dot" tattoos on their shoulders. I tried to not pay enough attention to make out who they were, but I think two of them were the FBI guy and the Sheriff.


----------



## astrohip (Jan 7, 2003)

Yep, lots of dots...


----------



## john4200 (Nov 1, 2009)

I am still concerned that Jane jumped to the conclusion that RJ killed Kira Tinsley.

What we know is that Kira indicated someone with a tattoo, 3 dots on the left shoulder, was the one who did that to her. 

But unless I missed something, for all we know, it could have been RJ, a RJ minion, or someone not directly related to RJ at all.

Someone hired Kira to plant a bug at the CBI. It is a good bet (although not certain) that the person who killed her was either the person who hired her, or a hireling of the person who hired her. But that is far from being evidence that the one who Kira saw was RJ.

Here are some possibilities for Kira's killer:

1) It was RJ. So we can assume that RJ is a member of the Tyger conspiracy. If we also assume the original list of 7 suspects includes RJ, then we now know that RJ is one of three remaining suspects: McAllister, Reede, or Bertram. But if RJ is one of those three, just arresting him may not end the killing. He probably has other powerful allies, in the Tyger conspiracy and outside, who may continue RJ's "work".

2) It was a RJ minion. This means we cannot make any certain conclusions about RJ. RJ could be a tattoo-toting member of the Tyger conspiracy, or not (but his minion is). So we still have 5 suspects, including Haffner and Stiles.

3) No direct relation to RJ. Obviously we cannot draw any conclusions about RJ in this case. So again we are left with 5 suspects. Maybe this is less likely, since the killer was a member of the Tyger conspiracy, and one would think the Tyger conspiracy would have better ways to bug the CBI than using a two-bit private detective. Whereas RJ, if he has Tyger conspiracy connections, may not be able to utilize their full power if he is trying to hide his identity from most of the other members.


----------



## unixadm (Jan 1, 2001)

I'm beginning to suspect that NONE of the suspects are Red John. RJ is a master manipulator....even more than Patrick Jane. Jane was spooked that the video of Lorelei listed every suspect that he had. I'm thinking that RJ has left breadcrumbs for Jane to follow that led him to each of the suspects..all being misdirection. Jane is being played big time by RJ, in my opinion and the final reveal will be someone else that isn't currently a suspect.

There are also clues that could lead us to believe that Jane himself is RJ. but I've heard that the producers have said that isn't the case...but then again, Lost producers said they weren't in purgatory....and we saw how that ended. I was thinking that Jane could be schizophrenic and really is RJ and doesn't realize it. That would explain why he sleeps so much on the couch, why RJ has so much info and how RJ killed people that had special meaning to Jane that no one else knew. If Jane was RJ, the final reveal would be the end of the show, so that apparently is not the case since the series is continuing after the reveal.

Spoiler that reference actor changes


Spoiler



With the announcement that Rigsby and Van Pelt will be leaving.....could Rigsby be RJ ?


----------



## smbaker (May 24, 2003)

Spoiler



haven't the producers told us that red John is one of the suspects?



Never mind, I see unix admin wrote the above in his post... Does anyone have a link to their comments? I'd like to read exactly what they say to be sure there's no easy way to wiggle out of it.


----------



## GDG76 (Oct 2, 2000)

unixadm said:


> .and we saw how that ended. I was thinking that Jane could be schizophrenic


Minor nitpick/pet peeve..

Schizophrenia is NOT multiple personality disorder! If you have ever had to deal with someone who is truly schizophrenic, there is no comparing the two (especially since almost every case of "multiple personality disorder" has been debunked as fake and I can guarantee you, schizophrenia is quite real).

Before I get nitpicked myself, DID is real: http://psychcentral.com/lib/dispelling-myths-about-dissociative-identity-disorder/0009785 but the idea of multiple personalities living in one body is a bunch of malarkey.


----------



## john4200 (Nov 1, 2009)

S06E07 "The Great Red Dragon"

That was awful. The worst Mentalist episode I can think of. So many people behaving in ways that are just stupid or makes no sense. I would list examples, but I am trying to blank out most of this episode. 

The only things I am wondering about are who lost the foot in the explosion; and if Bertram really is RJ (still not 100% convinced), does he have connections to Visualize? Or how do they explain the near fanatical devotion of many of RJ's followers who are clearly not just following the rules of the Blake Association, but are fanatically devoted to RJ himself.


----------



## Azlen (Nov 25, 2002)

If you're going to start a secret criminal organization, the last thing you want to do is mark yourself with an identifiable tattoo. How completely ridiculous is that?


----------



## Shakhari (Jan 2, 2005)

I don't totally buy him as RJ. It's been obvious since the end of the third season that he was at least a minion, but he doesn't match the physical description we've been given in the past. Plus, RJ has been shown to have some sort of ties to Visualize.


----------



## Thom (Jun 5, 2000)

I would have said that Red John is the sheriff, except that Cho said they had positive ID on the three bomb victims.

The bomb killed Stiles and Reed Diamond (?), who were left sitting on the couch after Jane had the sheriff move from the couch to join Bertram and the FBI agent, all three of whom had the tattoo.

The bomb did not kill Bertram, Jane, or the FBI agent, which means Stiles and Reed Diamond were closer to the bomb, which means the bomb was in or around the couch. The sheriff could have left the bomb in the couch when he moved to join the other tattooed suspects.

I wonder if the sheriff will turn up later, having falsified his own dental and /or DNA records so that the third body was mis-identified. 

Of course, that would raise the question of how the sheriff planted the third body, which probably means I've over-thought it...LOL...


----------



## AeneaGames (May 2, 2009)

Sigh, when is this mess finally over?


----------



## astrohip (Jan 7, 2003)

Azlen said:


> If you're going to start a secret criminal organization, the last thing you want to do is mark yourself with an identifiable tattoo. How completely ridiculous is that?


This is the part that disappointed me the most. It makes so little sense, other than to advance the plot.

I was really hoping, after all these years, that the final Red John/Patrick Jane showdown would be more than just a part of some giant conspiracy.


----------



## Donbadabon (Mar 5, 2002)

This show is really turning into "How I Met Red John".

I am ready for them to clean this storyline up and get back to the show.

Tiger Tiger. Sigh.


----------



## moose53 (Aug 30, 2011)

Donbadabon said:


> This show is really turning into "How I Met Red John".
> 
> I am ready for them to clean this storyline up and get back to the show.
> 
> Tiger Tiger. Sigh.


??Get back to the show?? The show has been about "Find Red John" since day one. I just watched the first episode last week ... I don't think I had ever seen it before.

The two things that drive me nuts are: (1) How does someone as dysfunctional as Patrick Jane get a job in law enforcement?? To my way of thinking, he's got way too many 'issues' to be any good at what he's trying to do. He spends way too much time laying down on the sofa. And (2) How can the whole police department spend so much time and manpower working on ONE CASE ... for what, almost ten years??


----------



## Idearat (Nov 26, 2000)

I'm also not convinced they're chasing the real Red John, nor do I think Jane does either. The bodies blown to bits is a too-common plot device for someone to disappear. There was also a bit of a leap when Jane asked Lisbon about the new public relations person before making the announcement. We never saw them conclude he was RJ. So, I'm thinking the whole chase for Bertram is just misdirection. 

I liked that when the FBI took over the CBI office all the other agents were jumping up and moving while Cho and Rigsby just sat there staring at him. If I was Lisbon, I would have insisted the FBI agent from Austin show me his shoulder. The description of The Association included judges not just cops, so there's a possibility that the judge who issued the writ was sporting a tattoo as well.


----------



## Donbadabon (Mar 5, 2002)

moose53 said:


> ??Get back to the show?? The show has been about "Find Red John" since day one. I just watched the first episode last week ... I don't think I had ever seen it before.


Yes. While Red John has been part of the show since the beginning, the early episodes dealt more with Patrick solving other cases, and Red John was in the background. Now it is almost all Red John.


----------



## astrohip (Jan 7, 2003)

Donbadabon said:


> Yes. While Red John has been part of the show since the beginning, the early episodes dealt more with Patrick solving other cases, and Red John was in the background. Now it is almost all Red John.


I don't have a problem with Red John becoming the temporary main focus of every recent episode, as the producers have said this is the end of the RJ story. So they need to make it (and it deserves to be) The Main Event. I always thought that PJ and RJ thought of themselves as the Smartest Guys in the Room. And this would be a Mentalist showdown. But it's turned into The Manchurian Candidate.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

astrohip said:


> I don't have a problem with Red John becoming the temporary main focus of every recent episode, as the producers have said this is the end of the RJ story. So they need to make it (and it deserves to be) The Main Event. I always thought that PJ and RJ thought of themselves as the Smartest Guys in the Room. And this would be a Mentalist showdown. But it's turned into The Manchurian Candidate.


Yeah, the problem with the focus on Red John as they pass through the endgame is that it focuses us on just how lame the Red John storyline has turned out to be.

That's one problem with making stuff up as you go along...sometimes you end up writing checks that you can't cash.


----------



## Azlen (Nov 25, 2002)

After last night, I'm thinking the Brett Partridge isn't really dead and is Red John is a lot more plausible. Why else have Cho go and take a picture of his shoulder without looking to see if it was indeed him? It seemed pointless to show unless something else was going to happen with it later.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

Azlen said:


> After last night, I'm thinking the Brett Partridge isn't really dead and is Red John is a lot more plausible. Why else have Cho go and take a picture of his shoulder without looking to see if it was indeed him? It seemed pointless to show unless something else was going to happen with it later.


Until last night, I was assuming Stiles was RJ, and he didn't have the tattoo because tattoos are for minions. But last night they made it sound like RJ is just another member of the club, not its Grand Poo-bah. Which gives me the horrible fear that after they take down Red John, they will turn their attention to the Blake Association, and this will never actually end.


----------



## john4200 (Nov 1, 2009)

I had a suspicion that Bertram was involved for a long time. I even put him as #2 on my suspect list, but if he was RJ, I thought he had Visualize help somehow.


----------



## JYoung (Jan 16, 2002)

I'm not buying Bertram as Red John either.
He doesn't seem to have the charisma to have fanatically devoted minions.

I'm still in the "Partridge faked his death" camp.

On the other hand, there's still no reason that it can't be Van Pelt.


----------



## Donbadabon (Mar 5, 2002)

JYoung said:


> On the other hand, there's still no reason that it can't be Van Pelt.





Spoiler



Bruno Heller said "we can trust that list". It isn't Jane, it isn't Van Pelt.

http://insidetv.ew.com/2013/05/06/mentalist-finale-season-6-red-john-list/


----------



## Idearat (Nov 26, 2000)

JYoung said:


> I'm not buying Bertram as Red John either.
> He doesn't seem to have the charisma to have fanatically devoted minions.


The group was revealed not as "RJ and his minions" but "A group of people who can't say no to orders being exploited by RJ". As described, they don't always know where the orders came from, but as they are all bound by their own secrets that might come out, they have to follow the orders at the risk of their own safety.(The risk not just their secrets coming out but someone else killing them for not following orders).

So, as we have it now, RJ isn't necessarily the leader, but could just just be someone who's part of the group and is using it to further his serial killer hobby.

Red John wouldn't have to be a charismatic leader, just someone who knows how to push the buttons. That said, I think Bertram and the hunt for him is misdirection. But his killing of the bartender though doesn't make him look to be just "a cop who screwed up once and is now stuck inside the organization".


----------



## john4200 (Nov 1, 2009)

Idearat said:


> Red John wouldn't have to be a charismatic leader, just someone who knows how to push the buttons.


But RJ *is* charismatic, or at least capable of brainwashing people into adoring him. This has been shown again and again over the years. Quite a few of his minions are fanatically devoted to him.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

john4200 said:


> But RJ *is* charismatic, or at least capable of brainwashing people into adoring him. This has been shown again and again over the years. Quite a few of his minions are fanatically devoted to him.


Which is why it's a little puzzling that they now seem to be backing away a little, and hinting that RJ is just another member of the Blake Association and not the mastermind behind it.


----------



## smbaker (May 24, 2003)

I'm becoming convinced that it is partridge. Why else would they be fussing with the body in the morgue, other than to take the first step in the "that's not rally partridges body" direction.

Bertram just doesn't seem like red John should seem to me. Not creepy enough. RJ should have been one step ahead of Jane during the aftermath of the explosion. Bertram was struggling to keep ahead. RJ shouldn't have had to struggle, in particular if he himself planted the bomb.

For those who watched the preview for next week, there was a voice that I assume to be red john's. who does it sound like to you?



Spoiler



i didn't think it sounded like bertram. Sounded like a younger man to me.


----------



## JYoung (Jan 16, 2002)

Idearat said:


> The group was revealed not as "RJ and his minions" but "A group of people who can't say no to orders being exploited by RJ". As described, they don't always know where the orders came from, but as they are all bound by their own secrets that might come out, they have to follow the orders at the risk of their own safety.(The risk not just their secrets coming out but someone else killing them for not following orders).
> 
> So, as we have it now, RJ isn't necessarily the leader, but could just just be someone who's part of the group and is using it to further his serial killer hobby.
> 
> Red John wouldn't have to be a charismatic leader, just someone who knows how to push the buttons. That said, I think Bertram and the hunt for him is misdirection. But his killing of the bartender though doesn't make him look to be just "a cop who screwed up once and is now stuck inside the organization".


I'm not talking about the Blakees when I refer to "minions" but people like Loralei, Timothy Carter (Bradley Whitford), Craig, Rebecca, etc.

Bertram is undoubtedly dirty and a murderer but I don't think he's Red John.


----------



## Church AV Guy (Jan 19, 2005)

I still think it's Partridge. We saw *A* body, but not his face. And one other thing that they slipped by...


Spoiler



in the previews for next week, RJ is talking to Jane, and the voice is not remotely similar to Bertram, but is very similar to Partridge.



This sweeps period will be the end of the RJ matter. What they will be dealing with after this is the Blake organization.

Oh, and this episode had one other interesting thing. Every time anyone mentioned the "conspiracy" the closed captioning spelled it T-I-G-E-R, which is consistent with what has been in the CC in the past, BUT when Smith quoted the first line of the poem, it was spelled T-Y-G-E-R, so they are using "Tiger, Tiger" deliberately.


----------



## john4200 (Nov 1, 2009)

But surely Jane saw Partridge's body and face when he went to the crime scene with him and Lisbon. Of course, Jane was initially concerned about Lisbon, but he still would not miss a chance to have a careful look at a RJ crime scene, including carefully examining Partridge's body.

If Partridge does turn out to be alive, there better be a *very* good explanation for how Jane got tricked. The problem is, the only good explanation I can think of would be a cliche -- identical twins. Distant second best explanation would also be a cliche -- Partridge took one of those handy-dandy drugs to appear dead and then put in a decoy body after he woke up.


----------



## eddyj (Jun 20, 2002)

john4200 said:


> But RJ *is* charismatic, or at least capable of brainwashing people into adoring him. This has been shown again and again over the years. Quite a few of his minions are fanatically devoted to him.


This is why Stiles was the only person in "the list" that made any sense.



Rob Helmerichs said:


> Which is why it's a little puzzling that they now seem to be backing away a little, and hinting that RJ is just another member of the Blake Association and not the mastermind behind it.


The two are not mutually exclusive. RJ may be a criminal mastermind, but only be involved with the Blake people as a convenience to him. He does not have to be their leader. In fact, working from the shadows is more his style.



Church AV Guy said:


> Oh, and this episode had one other interesting thing. Every time anyone mentioned the "conspiracy" the closed captioning spelled it T-I-G-E-R, which is consistent with what has been in the CC in the past, BUT when Smith quoted the first line of the poem, it was spelled T-Y-G-E-R, so they are using "Tiger, Tiger" deliberately.


I did notice that. So it has been intentional all along.


----------



## busyba (Feb 5, 2003)

Church AV Guy said:


> I still think it's Partridge. We saw *A* body, but not his face. And one other thing that they slipped by...
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> ...





Spoiler



To me, that voice sounded like the POTUS' Chief of Staff from Scandal.


----------



## bryhamm (Jun 30, 2004)

I'll just be glad when the whole RJ thing is over.


----------



## busyba (Feb 5, 2003)

During his confession, the FBI guy who got shot... did he say that he arranged to create fake credentials so RJ could infiltrate the CBI building and kill that secretary lady who had shot up the place? Am I remembering that correctly?

If Bertram were RJ, he wouldn't need that, would he?


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

eddyj said:


> The two are not mutually exclusive. RJ may be a criminal mastermind, but only be involved with the Blake people as a convenience to him. He does not have to be their leader. In fact, working from the shadows is more his style.


Not really...the strong implication all along has been that all these people are RJ's followers. Now, suddenly, he's peripheral to the larger conspiracy.

This doesn't read like the expanding awareness of an existing conspiracy. It reads like they changed their minds, and are largely ignoring all that they "exposed" about RJ in the past.


----------



## Alfer (Aug 7, 2003)

I know they have to do some things for dramatic effect, but seriously, if you were the bartender and saw a news story on the TV behind said supposed "serial killer" why in the WORLD would you point the news story out to the actual guy sitting there? Just shut your mouth, excuse yourself and call the po-po then get the heck out of there.


----------



## eddyj (Jun 20, 2002)

And how did they immediately know it was Bertram who killed the bartender?


----------



## ClutchBrake (Sep 5, 2001)

eddyj said:


> And how did they immediately know it was Bertram who killed the bartender?


I'd guess because his fingerprints were everywhere.


----------



## markz (Oct 22, 2002)

First of all, the 3 dead bodies are NOT all who they think think they are. Otherwise they would have said that positively identified them. Instead, they said, "they were burned beyond recognition, but DNA says it is them". So there will most likely be a false ID.

Secondly, since they definitely did not show us Partridge's face when they showed the arm, then I believe that was not his body.


----------



## ADG (Aug 20, 2003)

markz said:


> First of all, the 3 dead bodies are NOT all who they think think they are. Otherwise they would have said that positively identified them. Instead, they said, "they were burned beyond recognition, but DNA says it is them". So there will most likely be a false ID.
> 
> Secondly, since they definitely did not show us Partridge's face when they showed the arm, then I believe that was not his body.


Agreed. Red John is not being revealed until next week. If the bodies were who they are thought to be then Red John would already be revealed as Bertram


Spoiler



(since the producers told us at the beginning of the season Red John is one of the seven).


----------



## busyba (Feb 5, 2003)

markz said:


> Secondly, since they definitely did not show us Partridge's face when they showed the arm, then I believe that was not his body.


Maybe they just didn't want to pay the actor for an additional episode. 

Seriously though, it would be incredibly stupid of Cho to not have looked at the face, whether or not _we_ got to see it happen.


----------



## verdugan (Sep 9, 2003)

busyba said:


> During his confession, the FBI guy who got shot...


It cracked me up how they stress that they can't trust anybody in law enforcement and Smith is super paranoid about his safety, so after they finish interrogating him, they just walk out and leave the door open.


----------



## RickyL (Sep 13, 2004)

I have to wonder if not showing his face was a plot ploy or a business ploy. IOW, they didn't want to pay him.


----------



## JYoung (Jan 16, 2002)

busyba said:


> During his confession, the FBI guy who got shot... did he say that he arranged to create fake credentials so RJ could infiltrate the CBI building and kill that secretary lady who had shot up the place? Am I remembering that correctly?
> 
> If Bertram were RJ, he wouldn't need that, would he?


IIRC, the fake credentials were for the person who poisoned Rebecca the secretary.


----------



## markz (Oct 22, 2002)

busyba said:


> Maybe they just didn't want to pay the actor for an additional episode.
> 
> Seriously though, it would be incredibly stupid of Cho to not have looked at the face, whether or not _we_ got to see it happen.





RickyL said:


> I have to wonder if not showing his face was a plot ploy or a business ploy. IOW, they didn't want to pay him.


They would have shown Cho looking at his face without showing his face to us. Since Cho didn't look, it wasn't him, or it was incredibly DUMB writing.


----------



## busyba (Feb 5, 2003)

JYoung said:


> IIRC, the fake credentials were for the person who poisoned Rebecca the secretary.


Yeah, and I thought that person was RJ.


----------



## JYoung (Jan 16, 2002)

busyba said:


> Yeah, and I thought that person was RJ.


There's no reason it couldn't have been a minion.

In fact, it might have been better that it was.
Bertram and Partridge are known CBI employees and would likely be more recognized and remembered.


----------



## john4200 (Nov 1, 2009)

busyba said:


> Yeah, and I thought that person was RJ.


Right. She recognized him and greeted him adoringly. It was very likely RJ.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

From the episode Guide Data description for two weeks from now:


Spoiler



Looks like after they finish off the Red John story, there's a two-year time-jump.


----------



## busyba (Feb 5, 2003)

JYoung said:


> There's no reason it couldn't have been a minion.


Except this:



john4200 said:


> Right. She recognized him and greeted him adoringly. It was very likely RJ.


That was the impression I had gotten at the time as well.


----------



## JYoung (Jan 16, 2002)

john4200 said:


> Right. She recognized him and greeted him adoringly. It was very likely RJ.





busyba said:


> Except this:
> 
> That was the impression I had gotten at the time as well.


Well, it could have been someone like Timothy Carter.
Or it could have been Red John in disguise and it wouldn't have been a good idea for Partridge or Bertram to use their ID if they were logging visitors to Rebecca.

Of course, I suspect that I'm putting more thought into it than the writers.


----------



## Church AV Guy (Jan 19, 2005)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> From the episode Guide Data description for two weeks from now:
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> ...


The episode title is


Spoiler



"My Blue heaven" which does not even remotely imply anything red, so I assumed it was a giveaway that the RJ plotline was really over.



If Jane kills him, like he promised Bosco, won't he be headed for prison?


----------



## smbaker (May 24, 2003)

Church AV Guy said:


> If Jane kills him, like he promised Bosco, won't he be headed for prison?


He already killed Red John (Bradley Whitford) once, and managed to evade prison. I'm sure he can find some clever way to do it again.


----------



## busyba (Feb 5, 2003)

Church AV Guy said:


> If Jane kills him, like he promised Bosco, won't he be headed for prison?


Not if he stands his ground.


----------



## busyba (Feb 5, 2003)

JYoung said:


> Well, it could have been someone like Timothy Carter.
> Or it could have been Red John in disguise and it wouldn't have been a good idea for Partridge or Bertram to use their ID if they were logging visitors to Rebecca.


Rebecca wasn't killed by a visitor. She was killed by someone who passed by her in the hall (and quickly and surreptitiously smeared some poison onto her hand) while she was being moved.

Anyone who had access to be in the building (although an admittedly "employees-only" area of it) could have done it. If RJ needed to get fake credentials to do that, that would have to eliminate Bertram.



> Of course, I suspect that I'm putting more thought into it than the writers.


That's always a possibility.


----------



## john4200 (Nov 1, 2009)

busyba said:


> Rebecca wasn't killed by a visitor. She was killed by someone who passed by her in the hall (and quickly and surreptitiously smeared some poison onto her hand) while she was being moved..


I just rewatched that scene. It is near the end of S02E08 "His Red Right Hand". I was wrong that Rebecca greets him. But she very clearly gets a big smile when she sees him. She obviously recognizes whoever it is and is happy to see him.

It seemed like the area of the building that we saw Partridge working in before. But Partridge does not wear a police uniform like this person did. And Partridge would not normally need special credentials. Although maybe if he wanted to impersonate a police officer, then he would.


----------



## Shakhari (Jan 2, 2005)

smbaker said:


> He already killed Red John (Bradley Whitford) once, and managed to evade prison. I'm sure he can find some clever way to do it again.


Yeah, I was amused by the press conference ... Jane announces that Bertram is Red John and none of the reporters goes "Um, wait. Didn't you already kill Red John two years ago? It was in all the papers that he's dead."


----------



## busyba (Feb 5, 2003)

Shakhari said:


> Yeah, I was amused by the press conference ... Jane announces that Bertram is Red John and none of the reporters goes "Um, wait. Didn't you already kill Red John two years ago? It was in all the papers that he's dead."


I'm pretty sure it hit the news that RJ was still alive back when Jane tricked the serial killer into mocking Red John on TV, and RJ killed the guy and put his mark on the scene,


----------



## Alfer (Aug 7, 2003)

Reading the new USA Today article about the show and the whole RJ wrap up, there sure looks to be a a LOT of big changes starting with the December 1st episode. Looks like it could make for some more good episodes.


----------



## astrohip (Jan 7, 2003)

They're doing a bunch of interviews, drumming up PR for this last Red John episode. Here's a link to an interview with showrunner Bruno Heller (no spoilers):

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/live-feed/mentalist-simon-baker-ep-end-658385

A couple of interesting tidbits. These are not spoilers, but just to be safe:



Spoiler



* When you read this, it becomes clear they had no idea who RJ was at first. It was only as time went on (and I get the impression they mean years/seasons) did they finally decide who RJ would actually be.

* The first episode after RJ is set two years later.


----------



## Shakhari (Jan 2, 2005)

busyba said:


> I'm pretty sure it hit the news that RJ was still alive back when Jane tricked the serial killer into mocking Red John on TV, and RJ killed the guy and put his mark on the scene,


The only thing that happened there was the FBI came around to ask Jane if he REALLY killed Red John.


----------



## busyba (Feb 5, 2003)

Shakhari said:


> The only thing that happened there was the FBI came around to ask Jane if he REALLY killed Red John.


The only thing that we got to see. That doesn't mean that was the only thing that happened.

There was a gruesome crime scene and a big red bloody smiley face. Unless the cops did a really good cover-up job, I don't think it's an unreasonable assumption to make that the state of RJ was made publicly known soon thereafter.


----------



## john4200 (Nov 1, 2009)

astrohip said:


> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> * When you read this, it becomes clear they had no idea who RJ was at first. It was only as time went on (and I get the impression they mean years/seasons) did they finally decide who RJ would actually be.


Well, that is disappointing. For some reason I thought they had planned it from the beginning. Why is it so rare for shows with a multi-season arc to actually have even a rough idea of how that arc is going to conclude?


----------



## astrohip (Jan 7, 2003)

So that's it. After five seasons.

Sheriff Tom McAllister.


----------



## Shakhari (Jan 2, 2005)

astrohip said:


> So that's it. After five seasons.
> 
> Sheriff Tom McAllister.


Yeah, but that was the only surprise in the episode ... not that it wasn't Bertram, but which of the supposedly dead suspects it would turn out to be.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

Shakhari said:


> Yeah, but that was the only surprise in the episode ... not that it wasn't Bertram, but which of the supposedly dead suspects it would turn out to be.


I was holding out for Stiles, who would have been the least ridiculous of the suspects.


----------



## john4200 (Nov 1, 2009)

astrohip said:


> So that's it. After five seasons.
> 
> Sheriff Tom McAllister.


Nearly 5.5 seasons. After more than 5 years of puzzling about Red John, that lame episode is the resolution? No explanation for why so many people adored him? No explanation for how he knew the list of suspects except, "I have real psychic powers"?

What a letdown.


----------



## secondclaw (Oct 3, 2004)

Ugh ... The episode wasn't as bad as I thought it would be, but McAllister just doesn't make sense. Jane killing fake RJ was superior to this in every way, including RJ himself.


----------



## smbaker (May 24, 2003)

I thought it was a decent wrap-up of the RJ story.

We all knew it would turn out not to be Bertram, that meant it had to be one of the other "dead" guys. While my money was on Partridge, McAllister fit the role well enough. He had a little bit of a creepy vibe to him. I felt his portrayal at the end was reasonable well acted. I'm satisfied and ready to move on.

As far as not learning how he knew about the list, I don't mind that. The character of Jane didn't need to know, so we don't need to know.

I just hope TygerTyger / The Blake Society is done also. RJ/McAllister said he was the Blake society. Hopefully it dies with him, all the key players are done, and we can move on with new interesting stories. In my gut, I kinda doubt it though.


----------



## Peter000 (Apr 15, 2002)

Pretty lame anticlimactic ending to the RJ saga. If indeed it is the end. 

I just don't feel that RJ was charismatic enough to have so many followers. And in the end the character was very shallow... they didn't have any sort of back story on him, what made him tick, how he rose to "power." It's like pulling a mask off a superhero (or in this case villain) and he's just a guy. 

To be fair, I didn't watch much at all last season, so I might have missed something along those lines.


----------



## john4200 (Nov 1, 2009)

Peter000 said:


> To be fair, I didn't watch much at all last season, so I might have missed something along those lines.


Nope. Just as lame as you said.

I've come to the conclusion that it is nearly impossible to have a TV series with an intricate multi-season story arc that comes to a satisfying conclusion. The only exception I can think of in the past several decades is Babylon 5.

For some reason, TV writers just cannot (or do not?) plan ahead. Maybe they think long-term planning is a waste of time because the networks will probably force changes in any long-term plans (or just cancel the series before it reaches the long-term)?


----------



## betts4 (Dec 27, 2005)

john4200 said:


> Nearly 5.5 seasons. After more than 5 years of puzzling about Red John, that lame episode is the resolution? *No explanation for why so many people adored him? No explanation for how he knew the list of suspects except, "I have real psychic powers"?*
> 
> What a letdown.


What a letdown indeed.

It's almost as if they were just as tired of it all as we were.


----------



## markz (Oct 22, 2002)

My money was on Partridge being RJ.

As for not finding out the why, where, etc behind RJ, in real life we don't always hear what caused these crazed lunatics to do what they do, so I am alright with it not being all wrapped up with a cute little bow.

Jane was carrying that bird around all day. I bet he needs a new jacket! And they patted down Jane for a gun, but didn't notice a live pigeon?

Jane could have at least told Lisbon who RJ was. As far as they know, it was Bertram. Will they figure it out, when someone stumbles upon McAllistar's body, that since they thought he was dead, that he is RJ?

What becomes of the the lady from the chapel that walked away, and of all the other Blake Society people? Will they continue looking out for one another? Do they know that RJ was the head of the Blake Society? Or is the group autonomous enough to keep on functioning without a leader?

I bet the show does not get renewed. They have wrapped up the main story and will now show us the aftermath. I would be happy with it not continuing after this season is over.

Plus (Casting Spoiler):



Spoiler



Owain Yeoman and Amanda Righetti are leaving the show anyway after this season.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

markz said:


> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> Owain Yeoman and Amanda Righetti are leaving the show anyway after this season.


Not even


Spoiler



after. They're gone almost now. Apparently, when the show comes back next week after a two-year gap, they've left CBI and started a private detective agency. So they'll be available for guest appearances, but not in the regular cast any more.


----------



## JimSpence (Sep 19, 2001)

I wonder if the CBI will be reinstated?
I thought the emptying of the CBI offices was a bit over done.
I could see taking the records etc, but the desks as well?


----------



## Shakhari (Jan 2, 2005)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> I was holding out for Stiles, who would have been the least ridiculous of the suspects.


Agreed. He was they only one of the final suspects charismatic enough to be Red John. Plus, unlike McAllister, Reed Smith, and Ray Haffner, he'd been in the show all along, instead of a one-shot character before this season. Choosing him or Bertram, or even Brett Patrtidge, would have given the impression that the show has had a goal all along. Instead, they just pulled Red John's identity out of a hat.


----------



## smbaker (May 24, 2003)

Shakhari said:


> Choosing him or Bertram, or even Brett Patrtidge, would have given the impression that the show has had a goal all along. Instead, they just pulled Red John's identity out of a hat.


Perhaps the reason I'm satisfied it was McAllister is because I never expected anything other than to pull RJ's identity out of a hat.

After watching the entirety of Lost without learning a thing in the finale, after watching the entirety of Battlestar Galactica ("They have a plan") without them having a plan, ..., my expectations for long-term TV planning are quite low.

I find it telling that so many people would have been satisfied with RJ being Timothy Carter back in the S3 finale, a character we had never met before. Someone whose backstory and motivation we did not know.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

smbaker said:


> I find it telling that so many people would have been satisfied with RJ being Timothy Carter back in the S3 finale, a character we had never met before. Someone whose backstory and motivation we did not know.


Back then, though, it hadn't been dragged out and teased for years. I think at that point it would have been appropriate for it to be an ordinary, somewhat nebbishy guy whom nobody had ever noticed before.

And I wouldn't be surprised if they thought he _was _Red John when they did that episode, and then changed their minds over the break.


----------



## markz (Oct 22, 2002)

JimSpence said:


> I wonder if the CBI will be reinstated?
> I thought the emptying of the CBI offices was a bit over done.
> I could see taking the records etc, but the desks as well?


According to various sources on the Internet:



Spoiler



CBI is no more. They are done with that set, so they really did tear it down.

The show picks up to years later and shows where everyone ended up.

VanPelt and Rigsby have a PI agency together.


----------



## busyba (Feb 5, 2003)

john4200 said:


> The only exception I can think of in the past several decades is Babylon 5.


And that's because that was the only show where the whole five year story was fully mapped out before they even shot a single frame of film.


----------



## cmontyburns (Nov 14, 2001)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> Back then, though, it hadn't been dragged out and teased for years. I think at that point it would have been appropriate for it to be an ordinary, somewhat nebbishy guy whom nobody had ever noticed before.
> 
> And I wouldn't be surprised if they thought he _was _Red John when they did that episode, and then changed their minds over the break.


Bruno Heller has said he didn't know who Red John was until 2-3 years ago.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

cmontyburns said:


> Bruno Heller has said he didn't know who Red John was until 2-3 years ago.


But does that mean he had no idea before then, or that he finally settled on McAllister?

That RJ-killing season finalé felt "real" to me. I just have a fairly strong feeling that they meant it at the time, and then changed their minds.


----------



## JYoung (Jan 16, 2002)

markz said:


> As for not finding out the why, where, etc behind RJ, in real life we don't always hear what caused these crazed lunatics to do what they do, so I am alright with it not being all wrapped up with a cute little bow.


The problem is that after all this build up, there's nothing special about McAllister that makes me think, "ok, he could be Red John".

The way this whole thing was done, nothing was shown that shows why McAllister is a better choice.
He showed me nothing in the Church scenes.

They could stick Van Pelt in there instead and it wouldn't make any difference.

And they really fumbled when it came to Red John knowing about the list.



markz said:


> I bet the show does not get renewed. They have wrapped up the main story and will now show us the aftermath. I would be happy with it not continuing after this season is over.


The ratings haven't been very good this season so far but since it does have some problems with the football schedule disruptions, I'd say the jury is still out on whether or not CBS picks it up for next season.

With the next episode titled "My Blue Heaven", my guess is that Jane will start tracking the serial killer "Blue Jim".



Shakhari said:


> Agreed. He was they only one of the final suspects charismatic enough to be Red John. Plus, unlike McAllister, Reed Smith, and Ray Haffner, he'd been in the show all along, instead of a one-shot character before this season. Choosing him or Bertram, or even Brett Patrtidge, would have given the impression that the show has had a goal all along. Instead, they just pulled Red John's identity out of a hat.


I was thinking that they pulled it out of a certain anatomical area.


----------



## markz (Oct 22, 2002)

My wife equated the letdown in learning who Red John is with finally finding out who Deep Throat was. She read books about Watergate for years and then when they finally revealed his ID, she was disappointed. He wasn't even ever mentioned in any of the books she read as being a possible suspect.


----------



## Donbadabon (Mar 5, 2002)

Way back when he killed RJ on the season finalé was a great episode. It was as if they didn't think they were going to get a new season, so they wrapped it up in that final episode.

And once they learned they were renewed, it became a scramble to start over.

I was disappointed in the 2nd killing of RJ. Maybe it was the hype, maybe the loose ends, but it just didn't give me a satisfied feeling in the end.

I too wouldn't mind if they ended the show at the end of the season.


----------



## john4200 (Nov 1, 2009)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> That RJ-killing season finalé felt "real" to me. I just have a fairly strong feeling that they meant it at the time, and then changed their minds.


I think the same. In fact, I am probably not remembering correctly, but I thought I remembered some comment by the showrunners that implied that he really was RJ.

It certainly seems like they changed their minds. Which is too bad, because he could have been a more satisfying RJ, at the time, than McAllister after another 2.5 seasons.

The writing this season has been terrible. Even discounting the choice of RJ, many of the episodes this season had multiple major plot points that just did not make sense. It reminds me of the final season of Dexter, where multiple seasons of mostly good writing suddenly became awful.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

Donbadabon said:


> And once they learned they were renewed, it became a scramble to start over.


I don't think there was ever any doubt that the show would go on (it's always done well in the ratings, hasn't it?). I suspect that either the writers or the network decided when they were planning the next season that without Red John, there was no show, so the Red John they killed couldn't be the real thing. Retroactively.

That's my hunch, anyway. Either they killed him and then got cold feet, or they killed him and the network balked.


----------



## Fool Me Twice (Jul 6, 2004)

At last. With the Red John silliness out of the way, the show can focus on its real strength: Simon Baker's charming arrogance.


----------



## astrohip (Jan 7, 2003)

Interview with the showrunner:
http://tvline.com/2013/11/24/the-mentalist-red-john-revealed-killed-sheriff-mcallister/

I feel the same as many of you. After so many years of hype, after dozens of episodes where Red John is portrayed as some amazing behind-the-scene Svengali, as a Killer who can get his followers to also kill ala Manson... he ends up being this nondescript sheriff from Podunk County.

When we were being setup to believe Bradley Whitford was RJ, he at least had a persona of mystique about him, so one could at least imagine him as RJ (plus, BW is easily a strong enough actor to pull it off).

This was...

Meh.


----------



## moose53 (Aug 30, 2011)

astrohip said:


> Interview with the showrunner:
> http://tvline.com/2013/11/24/the-mentalist-red-john-revealed-killed-sheriff-mcallister/
> 
> I feel the same as many of you. After so many years of hype, after dozens of episodes where Red John is portrayed as some amazing behind-the-scene Svengali, as a Killer who can get his followers to also kill ala Manson... he ends up being this nondescript sheriff from Podunk County.
> ...


Exactly. I think I missed the first season of this show (just watched episode 1 last week).

Was it ever answered WHY Jane's family was killed??

What you called the "Podunk Sheriff" doesn't seem to have the brains or the charisma to be committing crimes all over the place (and still, I ask, ??WHY??), hold down a full-time job, and get everybody in the universe to follow him.

Don't you have to be like a John Kennedy or an Elvis Presley ... you know charisma with a CAPITAL *C*.

This show reminds me of Bones and Crossing Jordan and Castle ... lead character has major psychiatric issues and probably should not be in his/her job. That's probably why I stopped watching all of them.

The Mentalist season pass will probably go into the trash soon too. They're getting rid of two characters, changing another character drastically if you can believe the previews, plus all those other people that got killed off. Ain't too much left of the show ... is there??

Barb


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

moose53 said:


> Was it ever answered WHY Jane's family was killed??


Jane went on TV and gave a very scathing, belittling profile of Red John. Killing his family was retaliation.


----------



## john4200 (Nov 1, 2009)

moose53 said:


> Was it ever answered WHY Jane's family was killed??


Yes, more or less. Jane offended RJ on TV.


----------



## smbaker (May 24, 2003)

moose53 said:


> What you called the "Podunk Sheriff" doesn't seem to have the brains or the charisma to be committing crimes all over the place (and still, I ask, ??WHY??), hold down a full-time job, and get everybody in the universe to follow him.


He did an excellent job of hiding in plain sight, didn't he? 

I think people really aren't giving the McAllister character enough credit. There's no reason why he has to be a good sheriff. It's not necessarily in his best interest to be so. He doesn't have to be good at solving crimes. The goal of a serial killer would be to blend in. It would be to appear average in every respect. Mediocre. Fly under the radar. Think of him like a dark "Columbo". Appear bumbling to the observer, yet be brilliant in secret.

As far as "why?", why does any serial killer kill people? It's a psychological defect, a compulsion. Obviously the character enjoyed manipulating people. He treated life like it was a game. He repeatedly won, kept taking risks, until finally he took one risk too many and lost. He could have killed Jane years ago, and eliminated the threat.

ETA: I'm surprised I seem to be the only one who doesn't passionately hate this ending. Of the suspects, McAllister isn't a bad choice. I'd might even have to call him my second favorite after Partridge.


----------



## Fahtrim (Apr 12, 2004)

smbaker said:


> He did an excellent job of hiding in plain sight, didn't he?
> 
> I think people really aren't giving the McAllister character enough credit. There's no reason why he has to be a good sheriff. It's not necessarily in his best interest to be so. He doesn't have to be good at solving crimes. The goal of a serial killer would be to blend in. It would be to appear average in every respect. Mediocre. Fly under the radar. Think of him like a dark "Columbo". Appear bumbling to the observer, yet be brilliant in secret.
> 
> ...


Agreed


----------



## Alfer (Aug 7, 2003)

Well 2 years have officially passed and things are kind of "meh" at this point. 

The minute he met the American lady I knew something was up with her and I was right. I guess based on next week previews all is well in the world of Jane again and he's still up to his usual shenanigans.


----------



## Graymalkin (Mar 20, 2001)

So, "Mentalist 2.0" is going to be what "Veronica Mars Season 3" would've been, only with Simon Baker instead of Kristen Bell? I'd prefer Kristen. 

And it looks like they are going with the love triangle between Jane, Lisbon, and Agent Fischer. BLEAH.


----------



## JimSpence (Sep 19, 2001)

"I signed a napkin". I wonder how they will get around that part of the agreement?
Obviously, Agent Fischer will have something to do with that.


----------



## hefe (Dec 5, 2000)

Disappointed as everyone else about the Red John identity, but I was already pre-disappointed when the list of 7 was confirmed as containing the real RJ. So, separating that part of the story, I actually thought the last episode was fairly satisfying from the "good guy gets his revenge on the bad guy" angle.

And a reboot of the show, a big shakeup like they're doing? We'll see, but I think I like it. Any show gets old, and something like this is necessary, or you should just wrap it up anyway.

I knew after a couple scenes that the woman was probably a plant. A lot of the story was pretty predictable, but they have to go through it to get where they're going, and I thought it was a decent change of pace. We'll have Jane annoying the new bosses in no time, and that should be fun. I just wonder if there will be a new long term story arc like RJ again.


----------



## Alfer (Aug 7, 2003)

I liked the idle TV show style threat the main FBI guy tossed out. Basically "If you mess up one time, I can have you tossed in prison just like that." Yeah yeah yeah...not gonna happen as we all know.


----------



## john4200 (Nov 1, 2009)

I continue to be annoyed by the reactions of the characters to Abbott. They repeatedly fail to call the guy on his ridiculous crusade against Lisbon, Jane, and the team when there are surely many dirty cops out there to go after, probably even more dirty FBI agents. Jane et al. took out Red John, exposed a huge conspiracy in law enforcement including the head of the CBI and two FBI agents, and Abbott is going after the team who exposed these people? And they do not mention Abbott's astounding hypocrisy to him at all?


----------



## hefe (Dec 5, 2000)

john4200 said:


> I continue to be annoyed by the reactions of the characters to Abbott. They repeatedly fail to call the guy on his ridiculous crusade against Lisbon, Jane, and the team when there are surely many dirty cops out there to go after, probably even more dirty FBI agents. Jane et al. took out Red John, exposed a huge conspiracy in law enforcement including the head of the CBI and two FBI agents, and Abbott is going after the team who exposed these people? And they do not mention Abbott's astounding hypocrisy to him at all?


Welcome to the world of television drama.


----------



## busyba (Feb 5, 2003)

JimSpence said:


> "I signed a napkin". I wonder how they will get around that part of the agreement?
> Obviously, Agent Fischer will have something to do with that.


When Jane held the napkin up, saying "and these are my terms", the terms were completely readable on my screen. There was really nothing in those terms that were all that out there.

The only thing in his terms that were in any way in conflict with the FBI terms was that on the napkin it said that "all charges were to be dropped", while the FBI terms involve some kind of federal parole.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

busyba said:


> When Jane held the napkin up, saying "and these are my terms", the terms were completely readable on my screen. There was really nothing in those terms that were all that out there.
> 
> The only thing in his terms that were in any way in conflict with the FBI terms was that on the napkin it said that "all charges were to be dropped", while the FBI terms involve some kind of federal parole.


When he was doing the napkin thing, my thought was "He's giving them an easy way to get him back to the US to face charges without having to bother with extradition." Followed by, "He has to know that, and is up to something."

So either Jane and the writers are smarter than they've let on so far (my theory, or at least my hope), or Jane and the writers are morons.


----------



## BrettStah (Nov 12, 2000)

I don't think Jane was too surprised when the woman showed up as an FBI agent. I think he's got a plan.


----------



## GoPackGo (Dec 29, 2012)

I think that the FBI guy turning down Jane's terms in spectacular fashion was actually one of Jane's terms.


----------



## john4200 (Nov 1, 2009)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> So either Jane and the writers are smarter than they've let on so far (my theory, or at least my hope), or Jane and the writers are morons.


The writers are morons, or think the viewers are.

I do not see how an FBI agent could possibly have the authority to drop all charges against Jane. Perhaps all Federal charges (although I'm not sure even about that), but certainly he cannot decide to drop, for example, the murder charge(s) that would not be under Federal jurisdiction.


----------



## john4200 (Nov 1, 2009)

busyba said:


> When Jane held the napkin up, saying "and these are my terms", the terms were completely readable on my screen.


Really? Some of the writing was barely legible to me, but I could sort of make it out if I squinted.










1. must work directly with teresa lisbon

2. all criminal charges must be dropped

3. transportation must be provided by FBI. airstream trailer model [cannot make out the rest]

4. adequate supply of tea must be available at all times [something about types of tea]

5. a workspace to my satisfaction will be provided [cannot make out, maybe something about a couch]

6. in addition to salary all expenses of [something] including but not limited to travel [something] books and all other incidentals to be paid for by FBI.


----------



## busyba (Feb 5, 2003)

john4200 said:


> Really? Some of the writing was barely legible to me, but I could sort of make it out if I squinted.


a) 55" screen

2) In some frames it is much clearer than in others. I stepped through until I got a really clear shot.


----------



## quintby (May 11, 2010)

Not a single person has noted how VanPelt paid no attention whatsoever to her injured husband, bursting onto the scene with the sole intention of finishing the killing that had been botched. Why on earth would this story line of VanPelt becoming a computer whiz be drawn if not to set her up in a way that will end with her getting caught for having been the mole after she shifts to monitoring the FBI. 
VanPelts and her TV husbands character will be leaving the show at the end of the season? Cho will become suspicious because he knows Grace, which will lead to the true end, when VanPelt returns to kill Jane, and her husband will instead return the favor which VanPelt visited upon her last boyfriend by killing her, his wife. THAT would be an ending


----------



## quintby (May 11, 2010)

quintby said:


> Not a single person has noted how VanPelt paid no attention whatsoever to her injured husband, bursting onto the scene with the sole intention of finishing the killing that had been botched. Why on earth would this story line of VanPelt becoming a computer whiz be drawn if not to set her up in a way that will end with her getting caught for having been the mole after she shifts to monitoring the FBI.
> VanPelts and her TV husbands character will be leaving the show at the end of the season? Cho will become suspicious because he knows Grace, which will lead to the true end, when VanPelt returns to kill Jane, and her husband will instead return the favor which VanPelt visited upon her last boyfriend by killing her, his wife. THAT would be an ending


There would be pathos for the little boy's loss of his stepmother but not of his real mother, which would have been too much.


----------



## loubob57 (Mar 19, 2001)

BrettStah said:


> I don't think Jane was too surprised when the woman showed up as an FBI agent. I think he's got a plan.


I was not surprised by that, so I don't think Jane should be either.


----------



## Fahtrim (Apr 12, 2004)

I actually quite enjoyed the reboot and look forward to Jane continuing to play his "handlers" while actually doing good work


----------



## markz (Oct 22, 2002)

smbaker said:


> He did an excellent job of hiding in plain sight, didn't he?
> 
> I think people really aren't giving the McAllister character enough credit. There's no reason why he has to be a good sheriff. It's not necessarily in his best interest to be so. He doesn't have to be good at solving crimes. The goal of a serial killer would be to blend in. It would be to appear average in every respect. Mediocre. Fly under the radar. Think of him like a dark "Columbo". Appear bumbling to the observer, yet be brilliant in secret.
> 
> ...


And to add to that.

Instead of a lowly sheriff becoming a criminal mastermind, perhaps the criminal mastermind became a lowly sheriff to hide in plain sight.


----------



## ClutchBrake (Sep 5, 2001)

The biggest lame-o for me was the FBI operating with impunity in a non-extradition South American country. Right...


----------



## MikeCC (Jun 19, 2004)

ClutchBrake said:


> The biggest lame-o for me was the FBI operating with impunity in a non-extradition South American country. Right...


Yeah. I agree strongly. Come on, how do you think you'd react, and the U.S. authorities would react, if you heard that some Venezuelan national policemen drew their weapons and arrested someone in downtown Chicago or Washington, DC?

I'm sure the FBI handed the offenders over, but was the sale of that substance even illegal in whatever unnamed Latin American where Jane sought refuge?


----------



## eddyj (Jun 20, 2002)

They did not arrest anyone. They held them until the local police came and arrested them.

And selling drugs is illegal almost everywhere.


----------



## busyba (Feb 5, 2003)

eddyj said:


> They did not arrest anyone. They held them until the local police came and arrested them.


Although it's questionable as to whether or not it's legal for them to be armed or to use the threat of force to detain someone in that country.


----------



## eddyj (Jun 20, 2002)

Depends how much financial aid they get from the US.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

eddyj said:


> Depends how much financial aid they get from the US.


And how little "financial aid" they get from the drug dealers...


----------



## Snapperdude (Feb 10, 2005)

loubob57 said:


> I was not surprised by that, so I don't think Jane should be either.


She called him "Patrick" a couple of times. When he introduced himself I believe he used a different first name. He must have picked up on that.


----------



## john4200 (Nov 1, 2009)

Snapperdude said:


> When he introduced himself I believe he used a different first name.


Nope, when he came to her table he held out his hand and said "Patrick".


----------



## RickyL (Sep 13, 2004)

john4200 said:


> Nope, when he came to her table he held out his hand and said "Patrick".


But the ladies at who mailed his letters called him Mr. Jane in front of her.


----------



## john4200 (Nov 1, 2009)

RickyL said:


> But the ladies at who mailed his letters called him Mr. Jane in front of her.


Care to explain this non sequitur?


----------



## RickyL (Sep 13, 2004)

john4200 said:


> Care to explain this non sequitur?


I thought we were discussing if she knew who he was.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

RickyL said:


> I thought we were discussing if she knew who he was.


If you'd said "And" instead of "But," that would make sense. But "But" makes it sound like you were contradicting him by saying the same thing he said. Which makes somewhat less sense.


----------



## Fahtrim (Apr 12, 2004)

RickyL said:


> But the ladies at who mailed his letters called him Mr. Jane in front of her.


Mr. Jane is correct, his last name is Jane after all...........

should the post office ladies have called him Sir Knight Patrick the Jane??


----------



## bacevedo (Oct 31, 2003)

We are really liking the reboot of the show. Having them work for the FBI allows them to go to new locales and not always be doing investigations in northern California. It was fun to have them go to New York for the investigation and branch out.

Plus, the show is lighter again and allows Jane to have fun. There is just a lot more playfulness going on now between the characters. There are new characters to love and hate and for Jane to con.


----------



## AeneaGames (May 2, 2009)

bacevedo said:


> We are really liking the reboot of the show. Having them work for the FBI allows them to go to new locales and not always be doing investigations in northern California. It was fun to have them go to New York for the investigation and branch out.
> 
> Plus, the show is lighter again and allows Jane to have fun. There is just a lot more playfulness going on now between the characters. There are new characters to love and hate and for Jane to con.


I agree! This way it can go back to the fun show it was in the beginning and it allows them for somewhat different stories.

Although have to say I totally did not find the bald macho looking guy with tattoos to be the right choice for a computer programmer!


----------



## Fahtrim (Apr 12, 2004)

AeneaGames said:


> I agree! This way it can go back to the fun show it was in the beginning and it allows them for somewhat different stories.
> 
> Although have to say I totally did not find the bald macho looking guy with tattoos to be the right choice for a computer programmer!


Sir Knight Mr Jane the Patrick covered that in his analysis of the guy...........


----------



## Donbadabon (Mar 5, 2002)

What a breath of fresh air the show has now. I was really getting tired of the Red John storyline, so happy they've changed personnel and locations.

Love how Jane will always get his way, and is perfectly content on sitting in a jail cell until that happens.


----------



## secondclaw (Oct 3, 2004)

The show went back to its roots. This is great. RJ story line was a burden pulling the show down, hopefully they won't get a new big bad as a replacement. As far as macho programmer, I work with one just like that.


----------



## JYoung (Jan 16, 2002)

I did laugh when Kim asked Lisbon how she did it for all those years and Lisbon says, "I have no idea".


----------



## ClutchBrake (Sep 5, 2001)

Donbadabon said:


> What a breath of fresh air the show has now. I was really getting tired of the Red John storyline, so happy they've changed personnel and locations.
> 
> Love how Jane will always get his way, and is perfectly content on sitting in a jail cell until that happens.


Agree 100%!

Very, very well done on the new direction. Great example of how to reboot a show.


----------



## loubob57 (Mar 19, 2001)

Kim needs to stop being such a beyotch. I'm sure she'll soon learn that she can't control Jane no matter how much she wants to.


----------



## speedcouch (Oct 23, 2003)

I'm glad the Red John story is done. It should've ended years ago. Wasn't crazy about the reveal. Kept thinking it would be Malcolm McDowell's character since he is a famous actor and a cult leader made more sense as a criminal mastermind.

Like the reboot; however, network TV steals everything from cable shows. The original premise of this show was stolen from Psyche on USA and reboot is clearly similar to USA's White Collar. Just waiting for them to put Jane in an anklet.

Hate that Rigsby and Van Pelt are leaving, but that seems par for a CBS show...

Cheryl


----------



## JMikeD (Jun 10, 2002)

speedcouch said:


> Like the reboot; however, network TV steals everything from cable shows. The original premise of this show was stolen from Psyche on USA and reboot is clearly similar to USA's White Collar.


And TV steals everything from radio, and radio steals everything from books, and books steal everything from...


----------



## bacevedo (Oct 31, 2003)

speedcouch said:


> Like the reboot; however, network TV steals everything from cable shows. The original premise of this show was stolen from Psyche on USA and reboot is clearly similar to USA's White Collar. Just waiting for them to put Jane in an anklet.


It's interesting that you say that, because our other favorite show is White Collar. We have been waiting for Season 4 to show up on Netflix and it just showed up in the last few days. We are so excited.

Maybe that's why we like the reboot so much. Just much more fun and interesting stories to follow.


----------



## dianebrat (Jul 6, 2002)

JYoung said:


> I did laugh when Kim asked Lisbon how she did it for all those years and Lisbon says, "I have no idea".


I also really enjoyed that interchange and exasperated expression on Lisbon's face over it. It's a sign that you really know the characters both from the writers and viewers side that the one scene said so much.


----------



## Donbadabon (Mar 5, 2002)

JMikeD said:


> And TV steals everything from radio, and radio steals everything from books, and books steal everything from...


Howard Stern. Because he invented everything.


----------



## madscientist (Nov 12, 2003)

I just can't help imagining how happy and excited the writers must be to go to work these days, after getting the RJ albatross off of their shoulders. And it shows in the writing, I think.

I'm so happy Cho is still there. He makes me laugh all the time, and he's a perfect counterpoint to Jane's zanyness. This show would be nowhere near as good without him, and kudos to those responsible for recognizing how necessary that character is. His conversation with Fischer near the end of the last episode was excellent.

I was pretty OK with everything, even though the powers of the FBI are ridiculous, but whatever. The only false note was Abbott giving in to Jane's demands without even asking for a single name as proof (which, we are led to believe, Jane would not be able to provide).

I was sure that it would turn out that one of those copies that Jane had Abbott sign was not actually a copy, but something completely different with more weight. He just signed all 5 papers without looking at them.

One question: when Jane left his island and was getting on the bus, the hotel bellhop told him something that seemed to take quite a while and Jane was happy about it. I was sure it was going to be some kind of insurance Jane had worked out in case the FBI went back on their word but I don't think we ever found out what that was all about. Weird!


----------



## john4200 (Nov 1, 2009)

madscientist said:


> One question: when Jane left his island and was getting on the bus, the hotel bellhop told him something that seemed to take quite a while and Jane was happy about it. I was sure it was going to be some kind of insurance Jane had worked out in case the FBI went back on their word but I don't think we ever found out what that was all about. Weird!


You mean when the bellhop whispered in Jane's ear and Jane gave him a thumbs up? The bellhop was talking for 3 seconds or less. I'm not sure what you are talking about that took "quite a while".


----------



## bacevedo (Oct 31, 2003)

madscientist said:


> One question: when Jane left his island and was getting on the bus, the hotel bellhop told him something that seemed to take quite a while and Jane was happy about it. I was sure it was going to be some kind of insurance Jane had worked out in case the FBI went back on their word but I don't think we ever found out what that was all about. Weird!


I assumed it had to do with Jane getting the local "bad guys" arrested and the bellhop thanking Jane for that.


----------



## madscientist (Nov 12, 2003)

bacevedo said:


> I assumed it had to do with Jane getting the local "bad guys" arrested and the bellhop thanking Jane for that.


 I dunno. It was definitely much more involved than "thanks for the help" or "good to know you" or "visit soon". Plus in a TV show when someone whispers to the main character things that the audience can't hear and then they laugh, you kinda expect to get a reveal at some point as to what was going on. Why else would they show it?

Just seemed odd to me.


----------



## john4200 (Nov 1, 2009)

madscientist said:


> I dunno. It was definitely much more involved than "thanks for the help" or "good to know you" or "visit soon".


No, it easily could have been something like that. You really need to rewatch the scene.


----------



## smbaker (May 24, 2003)

I thought this Sunday's (1-5-14) episode was a bit of a snoozefest.



Spoiler



They revealed the woman to be the killer half way through the episode. Jane's team was well on the way to solving the crime themselves. Jane puts himself in harm's way in an almost suicidal manner, counting on the team getting there in time and then ends up jumping in the water when they don't arrive on time.

The supposedly super-smart female villain's master plan of shooting through the back window of the building in order to make it look like the person inside was killed by the police was wrong in so many ways. (no GSR on the dead guy's hands, improper trajectory from the police to the dead guy, etc). Most wrong was that they showed it directly to the audience, whereas this should have been the mystery to be solved.



Generally the episode seemed to be lacking his characteristic charm.


----------



## astrohip (Jan 7, 2003)

smbaker said:


> I thought this Sunday's (1-5-14) episode was a bit of a snoozefest.


Agree. A rather lackadaisical episode, in both writing and acting. Just mailed in...

Was this the beginning of the no Rigsby/Van Pelt era?

No spoiler tags needed, this is a Season Thread, any episode can be talked about as long as it's aired in the US.


----------



## betts4 (Dec 27, 2005)

I agree, it was a snoozefest. I did like one thing - Cho being the one to figure out the shots thru the window bit. It seemed like he was channeling some inner Jane, or Columbo or such that see things that the normal cops don't see. 

I only got to see as far as the woman pointing the gun at Jane on the boat and him saying it was being recorded by the police the whole time.


----------



## smbaker (May 24, 2003)

astrohip said:


> Was this the beginning of the no Rigsby/Van Pelt era?


I miss Rigsby, but the new FBI woman seems to make as good a Van Pelt as Van Pelt did.



betts4 said:


> I did like one thing - Cho being the one to figure out the shots thru the window bit.


That's when I said to myself, "do they really need Jane in this episode?"

It was a rather straightforward observation though, given the bullet hole made from outside the back window. Standard police procedural drama is to look for bullet holes and bullets everywhere, so it stands to reason it would have been found.


----------



## john4200 (Nov 1, 2009)

The strange thing was that they had all they needed to solve the case right after Jane spotted the third camera, right at the beginning of the episode.

They knew it was odd that the shooters knew about only 2 of the 3 cameras. And if they had someone fast forward through the video for the last few days, they should have easily spotted Crystal since they had her photograph and she was at least peripherally involved.

But instead, a day or two passes before they finally identify Crystal on the video. And just in time for them to make a frantic rush to tell Jane that he is dating the ringleader (as if he did not already know).

So, the FBI can identify a car by the sound of its engine, but they cannot be bothered to go through video files of the crime scene near the time that five DEA agents were murdered, looking for faces that are known to be involved in the case?

The other strange thing is that Crystal looked right into the camera. Why would she do that? I doubt she could see it in such a brightly lit room. So she already knew it was there before she looked. That is not a careful and disciplined thing for a ringleader to do.

Both things look like poor writing to me. The writing this entire season has been quite poor.


----------



## john4200 (Nov 1, 2009)

smbaker said:


> That's when I said to myself, "do they really need Jane in this episode?"


Well, he did get Crystal to confess. Although I'm not sure if that phone call was actually recorded or not.

I think Crystal only killed Paco because of what Jane told her about the case. But I don't think they have any proof tracing his death to her, unless she kept the gun she used to shoot him with and they are able to match ballistics to her gun. Which makes me wonder what her plan was anyway, wouldn't the police have run ballistics on the bullet in Paco's brain to see which officer shot him, and not found a match? Since she is supposed to be smart and careful, surely she would have got rid of the gun, in case the police figured out it was not a police officer who shot Paco.


----------



## john4200 (Nov 1, 2009)

astrohip said:


> Was this the beginning of the no Rigsby/Van Pelt era?


Minor spoiler from the next episode synopsis:



Spoiler



Rigsby and Van Pelt are in the next episode.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

betts4 said:


> I agree, it was a snoozefest. I did like one thing - Cho being the one to figure out the shots thru the window bit. It seemed like he was channeling some inner Jane, or Columbo or such that see things that the normal cops don't see.


It was also amusing when Cho was barking orders at Lisbon, and her bemused reaction at their role reversal.


----------



## eddyj (Jun 20, 2002)

john4200 said:


> But instead, a day or two passes before they finally identify Crystal on the video. And just in time for them to make a frantic rush to tell Jane that he is dating the ringleader (as if he did not already know).


They knew Crystal had been there and been interviewed, there was nothing to identify. The breakthrough was in noticing that she knew about the hidden camera.


----------



## jeepair (Apr 22, 2004)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> It was also amusing when Cho was barking orders at Lisbon, and her bemused reaction at their role reversal.


I recall him doing that before when Lisbon was suspended or something like that and she put Cho in charge. He barks orders nicely. Hanging around Jane has made him a better detective, otherwise he would have never gone into the back like that.


----------



## late for dinner (May 17, 2013)

what happened top the big guy who was the mastermind's muscle? We see him stage a killing, wipe down the gun to remove fingerprints and then touch everything in the house on his way out.


----------



## ADG (Aug 20, 2003)

late for dinner said:


> what happened top the big guy who was the mastermind's muscle? We see him stage a killing, wipe down the gun to remove fingerprints and then touch everything in the house on his way out.


Was it my imagination or did that same guy dump a half dozen spent cartridges next to the body and then plant a revolver?


----------



## late for dinner (May 17, 2013)

ADG said:


> Was it my imagination or did that same guy dump a half dozen spent cartridges next to the body and then plant a revolver?


yup, I was having trouble figuring out what all was going on.


----------



## betts4 (Dec 27, 2005)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> It was also amusing when Cho was barking orders at Lisbon, and her bemused reaction at their role reversal.





jeepair said:


> I recall him doing that before when Lisbon was suspended or something like that and she put Cho in charge. He barks orders nicely. Hanging around Jane has made him a better detective, otherwise he would have never gone into the back like that.


He was great at barking orders to the other FBI agents. I was wondering about his seniority and then realized he had probably been there for a couple years (?)


----------



## ClutchBrake (Sep 5, 2001)

late for dinner said:


> yup, I was having trouble figuring out what all was going on.


He had them in a bag. He dumped them on the floor then loaded them into the revolver.


----------



## eddyj (Jun 20, 2002)

The spent cartridges were to simulate him having shot from inside the house, when the actual shooting was from the outside.


----------



## ClutchBrake (Sep 5, 2001)

eddyj said:


> The spent cartridges were to simulate him having shot from inside the house, when the actual shooting was from the outside.


I think what they were getting at was that there wouldn't be spent casings on the ground in the case of a revolver. They'd still be in the cylinder. Unless they caught him mid reload.

My recollection of the scene had him dump the casings on the ground from a bag then putting them in the cylinder. That would have made it all good (so to speak).


----------



## eddyj (Jun 20, 2002)

ClutchBrake said:


> My recollection of the scene had him dump the casings on the ground from a bag then putting them in the cylinder. That would have made it all good (so to speak).


My assumption was the same, that they were put in the gun.


----------



## ADG (Aug 20, 2003)

eddyj said:


> The spent cartridges were to simulate him having shot from inside the house, when the actual shooting was from the outside.


Yes, I understand that. The problem is that revolvers don't eject cartridges. And if he did indeed put them in the gun (which I didn't see), why go through the effort of carrying them in a plastic bag? Why wouldn't the shells already be in the gun since he was planting both?

This is the sort of thing that drives me nuts with shows such as the dearly departed CSI Miami and Hawaii 50. Either they don't care enough to take the time and get it right or they think the audience is too stupid to notice.


----------



## john4200 (Nov 1, 2009)

eddyj said:


> They knew Crystal had been there and been interviewed, there was nothing to identify. The breakthrough was in noticing that she knew about the hidden camera.


Sure, but why did it take the FBI so long? Crystal stared right into the camera for several seconds. If the FBI had just had some guy fast-forwarding through the video, they should have caught that within a couple hours of having received the video files.


----------



## john4200 (Nov 1, 2009)

eddyj said:


> My assumption was the same, that they were put in the gun.


No assumption necessary. They showed it:










Although why that guy was not wearing gloves all that time is a mystery.


----------



## smbaker (May 24, 2003)

john4200 said:


> No assumption necessary. They showed it:


Weird. I remember them being dumped on the floor, but not loaded into the revolver.


----------



## eddyj (Jun 20, 2002)

He did wipe the gun afterwards. But yeah, stupid.


----------



## eddyj (Jun 20, 2002)

john4200 said:


> Sure, but why did it take the FBI so long? Crystal stared right into the camera for several seconds. If the FBI had just had some guy fast-forwarding through the video, they should have caught that within a couple hours of having received the video files.


Caught what, that Crystal had been there? They knew that. That she put in some makeup in front of a mirror? That is what mirrors are for. A quick fast forward may not have made it obvious that she knew that there was a camera there.


----------



## john4200 (Nov 1, 2009)

smbaker said:


> Weird. I remember them being dumped on the floor, but not loaded into the revolver.


They did not show him reload all 6. They showed about 1.5 and time-jumped the rest.


----------



## john4200 (Nov 1, 2009)

eddyj said:


> Caught what, that Crystal had been there? They knew that. That she put in some makeup in front of a mirror? That is what mirrors are for. A quick fast forward may not have made it obvious that she knew that there was a camera there.


Caught her staring right into the camera for several seconds. Caught exactly what Lisbon saw when she reviewed the video two days later. If Lisbon can catch it while browsing the video, someone else could, too.

And of course a fast-forward would have caught it.  When you are fast forwarding and suddenly a person flashes right in front of the camera, you rewind and watch more carefully.

By the way, perhaps part of the reason we are debating this is that the evidence the FBI had was quite nebulous. I don't think they had any hard evidence on Crystal, unless they taped her confession from Jane's phone (seems unlikely, since no one spoke when Jane revealed the phone and his danger), or unless she stupidly kept the gun she used to shoot Paco.


----------



## eddyj (Jun 20, 2002)

It was a mirror she was staring at. Of course she was looking right at it. So  right back at you.


----------



## john4200 (Nov 1, 2009)

eddyj said:


> It was a mirror she was staring at. Of course she was looking right at it. So  right back at you.


Good thing you are not an FBI agent. People rarely just stand there and stare at themselves in a mirror in a public place, much less a DEA office. Especially a mirror as high on the wall as this one was. And this happened to be the only surveillance camera that survived the shooters. That is what Lisbon must have noticed. Obviously anyone with any common sense taking a quick look through the video (and being familiar with the case file) would have noticed as well.


----------



## eddyj (Jun 20, 2002)

She was not staring at herself, she was putting on lipstick or something. Normal behavior in front of a mirror.

But maybe you should become an FBI agent, since this stuff seems to obvious to you.


----------



## late for dinner (May 17, 2013)

eddyj said:


> She was not staring at herself, she was putting on lipstick or something. Normal behavior in front of a mirror.
> 
> But maybe you should become an FBI agent, since this stuff seems to obvious to you.


watch it again Eddy, she put on her lipstick looking straight into the mirror and then glanced up to look directly into the camera. No normal behaviour in front of a mirror.


----------



## eddyj (Jun 20, 2002)

late for dinner said:


> watch it again Eddy, she put on her lipstick looking straight into the mirror and then glanced up to look directly into the camera. No normal behaviour in front of a mirror.


Normal enough to not notice when fast forwarding through a lot of tape. She walks up, puts on makeup, looks up and leaves. At normal speed, it was obvious. I am just arguing that for someone fast forwarding through many hours of tape, it would not have jumped out.


----------



## john4200 (Nov 1, 2009)

late for dinner said:


> watch it again Eddy, she put on her lipstick looking straight into the mirror and then glanced up to look directly into the camera. No normal behaviour in front of a mirror.


Right. She used the lower portion of the mirror to apply the makeup (since the mirror was mounted so high). Then she stared UP, near the top of the mirror, right at the camera, for several seconds.

But really, that is all beside the point. This was the only surveillance camera that survived the shooters. Anyone with any common sense who reviewed the footage would be suspicious of someone standing in front of the mirror for a while, even if they were applying makeup.


----------



## john4200 (Nov 1, 2009)

eddyj said:


> Normal enough to not notice when fast forwarding through a lot of tape. She walks up, puts on makeup, looks up and leaves. At normal speed, it was obvious. I am just arguing that for someone fast forwarding through many hours of tape, it would not have jumped out.


But you are arguing nonsense. Anyone with a thimblefull of common sense fast forwarding through that footage would have stopped for a closer look when someone stood in front of and stared into the only surveillance camera that survived the shooters.


----------



## eddyj (Jun 20, 2002)

Yes, you are the most brilliant detective mind in our generation, and I bow to your greatness. I apologize from taking your time away from solving all the open cases in the US just to discuss this with me. It will not happen again.


----------



## john4200 (Nov 1, 2009)

eddyj said:


> Yes, you are the most brilliant detective mind in our generation, and I bow to your greatness. I apologize from taking your time away from solving all the open cases in the US just to discuss this with me. It will not happen again.


It does not take a brilliant mind. A modicum of common sense is all that is required.

I find it hard to believe that you really think that anyone going through the video footage looking for anything suspicious would fail to notice when someone stands right in front of the surveillance camera for, say about 10 seconds at least, and then stares into it for a couple seconds. That would stand out even in fast forward, and anyone would then rewind and watch carefully.


----------



## ADG (Aug 20, 2003)

smbaker said:


> Weird. I remember them being dumped on the floor, but not loaded into the revolver.


Same here, but okay - he apparently did. But WHY? Why would the shells be in a baggie and not already in the revolver? Never mind, given everything else that didn't make sense in this episode I guess there's no reason to nitpick


----------



## smbaker (May 24, 2003)

john4200 said:


> I find it hard to believe that you really think that anyone going through the video footage looking for anything suspicious would fail to notice when someone stands right in front of the surveillance camera for, say about 10 seconds at least, and then stares into it for a couple seconds. That would stand out even in fast forward, and anyone would then rewind and watch carefully.


Humor me, because I only have about half a thimbleful of common sense.

Why was it suspicious that she stared into the camera? The camera is behind the mirror. How is it possible to discern the difference between staring at the camera and staring at the mirror? Why does she not look like anyone else looking at the mirror? Mirrors exist to be stared at.

It seems to me one could just as easily conclude that she stared at the mirror because she didn't know the camera was there. If I was a criminal, I think I would try to avoid staring at surveillance cameras.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

smbaker said:


> It seems to me one could just as easily conclude that she stared at the mirror because she didn't know the camera was there. If I was a criminal, I think I would try to avoid staring at surveillance cameras.


Ah, but they made a point of showing that the mirror was hung too high. She would have been staring at the ceiling, not her own reflection.

(And no, nothing involving the mirror made any sense. I suspect it was all just a "we have to have her see the camera so we can move the story to the next plot point, but we don't have time to work it out rationally so let's just hope nobody notices and they don't still watch this show on TiVoCommunity do they?" thing.)


----------



## loubob57 (Mar 19, 2001)

smbaker said:


> Humor me, because I only have about half a thimbleful of common sense.
> 
> Why was it suspicious that she stared into the camera? The camera is behind the mirror. How is it possible to discern the difference between staring at the camera and staring at the mirror? Why does she not look like anyone else looking at the mirror? Mirrors exist to be stared at.
> 
> It seems to me one could just as easily conclude that she stared at the mirror because she didn't know the camera was there. If I was a criminal, I think I would try to avoid staring at surveillance cameras.





Rob Helmerichs said:


> Ah, but they made a point of showing that the mirror was hung too high. She would have been staring at the ceiling, not her own reflection.
> 
> (And no, nothing involving the mirror made any sense. I suspect it was all just a "we have to have her see the camera so we can move the story to the next plot point, but we don't have time to work it out rationally so let's just hope nobody notices and they don't still watch this show on TiVoCommunity do they?" thing.)


They show her looking into the mirror where her eyeline is initially low since she was looking at her own reflection. Then she looks higher right into the camera lens and lingers for a few seconds. As Rob points out that would mean seeing a reflection of the ceiling. That would be a bit odd. But whatever, it was in the script.


----------



## john4200 (Nov 1, 2009)

loubob57 said:


> They show her looking into the mirror where her eyeline is initially low since she was looking at her own reflection. Then she looks higher right into the camera lens and lingers for a few seconds. As Rob points out that would mean seeing a reflection of the ceiling. That would be a bit odd. But whatever, it was in the script.


Right.

But this is all beside the point. I do not think anyone made a claim that what she did *proves* anything. The point is that it looks suspicious. It makes her a suspect. It should have been picked up on very early by the FBI, not a few days later when Lisbon happens to see it.


----------



## smbaker (May 24, 2003)

john4200 said:


> The point is that it looks suspicious. It makes her a suspect. It should have been picked up on very early by the FBI, not a few days later when Lisbon happens to see it.


It looks suspicious to TV cops.

To non-TV cops, it's just a person looking at a mirror.


----------



## john4200 (Nov 1, 2009)

smbaker said:


> It looks suspicious to TV cops.


It is suspicious to anyone with even a modicum of common sense.


----------



## BrettStah (Nov 12, 2000)

How did looking up at the mirror let her see the camera exactly? I've looked up at a high mirror before... Sometimes there's something on the ceiling that catches my eye.


----------



## smbaker (May 24, 2003)

john4200 said:


> It is suspicious to anyone with even a modicum of common sense.


A person who has a reason for being in that room looks at a mirror for 3 seconds. Not suspicious anywhere except on TV.

It would have been more suspicious if they'd shown her obviously casing the room, looking for hidden cameras.



BrettStah said:


> I've looked up at a high mirror before...


I've even been known to look at cameras...



BrettStah said:


> How did looking up at the mirror let her see the camera exactly?


I don't think it did. The implication, as far as I can tell, was that she already knew it was there. The line of dialog was something like "She looked at the camera. She knows it's there".

From what I recall, Jane himself didn't "see" the camera either. He deduced it from the location of the mirror.


----------



## john4200 (Nov 1, 2009)

smbaker said:


> A person who has a reason for being in that room looks at a mirror for 3 seconds. Not suspicious anywhere except on TV.


What an absurd thing to say.

Gunmen came into a DEA office, murdered the agents, and immediately located and disabled 2 of the 3 hidden cameras in the office.

Anyone who knows this and is reviewing the video from the few days prior to the shootings, looking for anything suspicious, is going to immediately flag the lady who stares right into the only surviving hidden camera as suspicious. There is no doubt. Real or TV, this is completely obvious.


----------



## smbaker (May 24, 2003)

john4200 said:


> Gunmen came into a DEA office, murdered the agents, and immediately located and disabled 2 of the 3 hidden cameras in the office.


Realize what you've just said. You just made the case that the initial FBI investigators would have suspected the killers did _not_ know about that camera, and therefore would not have paid any special attention to that mirror.

I think you watch too much television as you're taking a very naive view of how the real world functions. You're expecting scriptwriters to dangle obvious clues in front of you, to which the one-dimensional cardboard characters immediately recognize and use to solve the case. Real life doesn't work that way.

In reality, there would have been dozens or even hundreds of people that would have been investigated. More important than the camera that survived would be the two cameras that were known to the killers and destroyed. The FBI would be looking for people who knew about those two cameras. Contractors, maintenance workers, FBI agents, anyone who would have had knowledge of the locations of those two destroyed cameras. FBI would be watching surveillance video, but what they would have been looking for was not suspicious behavior in the vicinity of the surviving camera, but suspicious behavior in the vicinity of the two destroyed cameras.

This particular woman had a valid reason for being there. She even had a valid reason for looking at the mirror (applying her lipstick). That she looked up for a second or two would not stand out.

Furthermore, you've never explained why one would suspect that the mastermind of the shooting would look directly at the camera. If anything. knowledge of the camera would cause her to avoid it. You're standing behind something that isn't even a well-written episode.


----------



## eddyj (Jun 20, 2002)

BrettStah said:


> How did looking up at the mirror let her see the camera exactly? I've looked up at a high mirror before... Sometimes there's something on the ceiling that catches my eye.


Sorry, you are just stupid. You can join me in stupid corner and let the really smart people tell us how dumb we are.


----------



## smbaker (May 24, 2003)

eddyj said:


> Sorry, you are just stupid. You can join me in stupid corner and let the really smart people tell us how dumb we are.


Can I join you guys?

I'll even wear a dunce cap with '_looks at cameras when at the bank_' written on it. It's only a matter of time before a bank is robbed and some crack FBI team comes after me.


----------



## eddyj (Jun 20, 2002)

smbaker said:


> Can I join you guys?
> 
> I'll even wear a dunce cap with '_looks at cameras when at the bank_' written on it. It's only a matter of time before a bank is robbed and some crack FBI team comes after me.


I don't know how to count high enough to see if we have space for you.


----------



## bacevedo (Oct 31, 2003)

smbaker said:


> I'll even wear a dunce cap with '_looks at cameras when at the bank_' written on it. It's only a matter of time before a bank is robbed and some crack FBI team comes after me.


This made me laugh out loud right there.


----------



## john4200 (Nov 1, 2009)

smbaker said:


> You just made the case that the initial FBI investigators would have suspected the killers did _not_ know about that camera, and therefore would not have paid any special attention to that mirror.
> 
> (snipped remaining nonsense)


No, I made no such case. You may need to watch the episode again to eliminate your confusion. Crystal was not one of the gunmen. She is a suspect for the person who set up the gunmen to be caught.


----------



## smbaker (May 24, 2003)

john4200 said:


> No, I made no such case. You may need to watch the episode again to eliminate your confusion.


Pointless to continue discussing this with you. I think I'll join eddyj, who clearly has more common sense than me, as he gave up arguing with you days ago.


----------



## john4200 (Nov 1, 2009)

smbaker said:


> Pointless to continue discussing this with you.


Agreed. Since you are confused about what happened in the episode, and are unwilling to accept a simple common sense explanation, it will not help you at all to continue discussing it.


----------



## smbaker (May 24, 2003)

john4200 said:


> Agreed. Since you are confused about what happened in the episode, and are unwilling to accept a simple common sense explanation, it will not help you at all to continue discussing it.


I have no confusion about the episode.

However, if it makes you feel better to think so, then go ahead and do so. I declare you winner, by attrition. You're not interested in discussion, you're only interested in declaring your view correct and ignoring any discussion to the contrary.


----------



## john4200 (Nov 1, 2009)

smbaker said:


> I have no confusion about the episode.


False. You are clearly confused about what happened in this episode, and even what has been written in this thread. You already made a false assumption about Crystal being one of the gunmen and this led you to claim that I was asserting something that I did not say.

This is not rocket science. It can be summarized in a few sentences. I'll even do it again.

The men who gunned down the DEA agents knew exactly where 2 of the 3 surveillance cameras were, and they were so confident that they knew all of the cameras that they took off their masks (which makes little sense, but ignore that) and were identified by the 3rd camera they did not know about. A short time before the shootings, a woman stood right in front of the 3rd camera and stared for several seconds at what would be a reflection of the ceiling, or the position of the camera behind the mirror (which again makes no sense for a smart criminal to do, but ignore that). We have a suspicious lack of knowledge of the gunmen about the 3rd camera, and we have a woman suspiciously staring into the 3rd camera. This makes the woman a suspect worthy of further investigation.


----------



## smbaker (May 24, 2003)

john4200 said:


> False. You are clearly confused about what happened in this episode, and even what has been written in this thread. You already made a false assumption about Crystal being one of the gunmen...


Good grief. Please actually go back and read what I said. At no time did I ever say or suspect that she was one of the masked gunmen.



> (which again makes no sense for a smart criminal to do, but ignore that).


Key point being conveniently ignored.



> We have a suspicious lack of knowledge of the gunmen about the 3rd camera, and we have a woman suspiciously staring into the 3rd camera. This makes the woman a suspect worthy of further investigation.


Key point being misinterpreted.


----------



## john4200 (Nov 1, 2009)

smbaker said:


> At no time did I ever say or suspect that she was one of the masked gunmen.


Actually, you did. Either that or something even more nonsensical. It is hard to follow your logic since you are so confused about what happened.

You wrote:



> You just made the case that the initial FBI investigators would have suspected the killers did not know about that camera, and therefore would not have paid any special attention to that mirror.


I did not "make the case", since that would depend on a total misunderstanding of the situation.

The gunmen did not know about the third camera but they appeared confident that they knew about *all* the cameras. Apparently they had some inside information that they thought was reliable but was actually not. So anyone reviewing the video prior to the shootings would be looking for clues as to how the gunmen got their information about 2 of the 3 cameras. Anyone staring at any of the 3 cameras would have seemed suspicious, and Crystal was especially suspicious, staring into the camera that the gunmen did not know about.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

smbaker said:


> Good grief.


You realize he's never going to stop until you do?


----------



## smbaker (May 24, 2003)

john4200 said:


> A It is hard to follow your logic since you are so confused about what happened.


You keep saying this, a simple attempt to deflect from actual discussion of the show by attacking the messenger instead of the message.

I know exactly what happened.



john4200 said:


> The gunmen did not know about the third camera but they appeared confident that they knew about *all* the cameras.


Exactly correct. As such, the FBI would be concentrating on who knew about the two cameras that the gunmen did destroy, not who knew about the one camera they did not destroy.

For the mastermind to rely on one camera to be not destroyed, and that camera to lead police down an improbably series of steps in a complicated frame up is made-for-TV nonsense, and any person with 'a thimbleful of common sense' should see it as so.

Furthermore, as you pointed out yourself (and admittedly ignored, as it does not fit your narrative), the alleged criminal mastermind would not have started at the camera she knew about in the first place.



john4200 said:


> So anyone reviewing the video prior to the shootings would be looking for clues as to how the gunmen got their information about 2 of the 3 cameras.


And they would have found someone in the place she was supposed to be, doing an activity that one normally does while looking at a mirror. They would have vetted her, and continued to look for someone else who was casing the locations of the other two cameras.

Didn't I already declare you the winner through attrition of this argument? Why am I still bothering?


----------



## smbaker (May 24, 2003)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> You realize he's never going to stop until you do?


I suppose you're right.

I knew this. Declared him the winner. Then somehow I got pulled back into the nonsense.


----------



## eddyj (Jun 20, 2002)

smbaker said:


> I suppose you're right.
> 
> I knew this. Declared him the winner. Then somehow I got pulled back into the nonsense.


Good, because otherwise you go to the other corner, where you can beat your head against a wall, instead here with the rest of us stupids.


----------



## john4200 (Nov 1, 2009)

smbaker said:


> I know exactly what happened.


Now that I have explained it repeatedly, you seem to finally be getting clearer on what happened in the episode.

But your difficulty is that you refuse to accept a simple common sense explanation. In the situation that existed, Crystal's behavior was suspicious. It would make her a suspect.

I'm not sure why you are so confused about how investigations work in the real world. Investigators do not make all sorts of nebulous assumptions about why someone might have behaved in a suspicious way and then conclude, that's okay, they might have had a reason for doing that. No, what investigators do is look for anomalies -- unusual or suspicious behavior. Then they investigate those anomalies further.



smbaker said:


> I knew this. Declared him the winner. Then somehow I got pulled back into the nonsense.


Clearly you felt bad about being confused and posting all that nonsense, and you wanted help trying to understand. You're welcome.


----------



## smbaker (May 24, 2003)

eddyj said:


> Good, because otherwise you go to the other corner, where you can beat your head against a wall, instead here with the rest of us stupids.


I'm definitely sticking with the eddyj corner! It's good times over here.

Can we call our corner the 'den of the _confused confusing confusers_' ?

Maybe "men who stare at mirrors" would be an even better name for our corner. It could make an awesome George clooney movie about a tragic and comedic case of mistaken identity and law enforcement overreach.


----------



## smbaker (May 24, 2003)

New mystery for this season -- what the heck happened to Van Pelt's hair??? She looks ridiculous. 


(Did she have the new hairstyle in the first post-RJ episode?)


I'm expecting the tyger tyger folks are back.


----------



## astrohip (Jan 7, 2003)

I liked this episode. The reboot is working for me. I like the new FBI lady, I like the way Jane plays them all, and even Lisbon is now the voice of experience when it comes to Jane's _methods_.



smbaker said:


> I'm expecting the tyger tyger folks are back.


I hope not. I think the worst thing they could do for this show would be to bring back ANY vestige of The Mentalist 1.0. It's new, it's fresh, it's actually fun to watch again.

If tyger tyger or RJ or any of the old Mentalist returns, I think it would drive me away (and probably many old time viewers who were at our limits).


----------



## betts4 (Dec 27, 2005)

I liked the episode. I like the reboot. Jane in this episode was laughing, fun and quirking that eyebrow again! 

But really, Van Pelt looked like she was from the 60's with those bangs and Rigsby in the skinny jeans was amusing.


----------



## busyba (Feb 5, 2003)

I was worried that Rigsby was going to get killed in that final scene.


----------



## smbaker (May 24, 2003)

astrohip said:


> I hope not. I think the worst thing they could do for this show would be to bring back ANY vestige of The Mentalist 1.0. It's new, it's fresh, it's actually fun to watch again.


I agree, but with someone running surveillance on cellphones of former CBI agents, I have a gut feeling it's an old foe. Tyger Tyger was never fully resolved.



busyba said:


> I was worried that Rigsby was going to get killed in that final scene.


or Van Pelt.

(actually, not worry, but hope...)


----------



## eddyj (Jun 20, 2002)

busyba said:


> I was worried that Rigsby was going to get killed in that final scene.


That would make Van Pelt available, right? Works for me! 

Although that hair was godawful!


----------



## ClutchBrake (Sep 5, 2001)

astrohip said:


> I hope not. I think the worst thing they could do for this show would be to bring back ANY vestige of The Mentalist 1.0. It's new, it's fresh, it's actually fun to watch again.
> 
> If tyger tyger or RJ or any of the old Mentalist returns, I think it would drive me away (and probably many old time viewers who were at our limits).


This x 1000.

I have to admit I was kinda dozing off last night. From what did Van Pelt pull the information showing all the CBI agents being tracked? Surely it wasn't the cell phone bug.


----------



## markz (Oct 22, 2002)

BrettStah said:


> How did looking up at the mirror let her see the camera exactly? I've looked up at a high mirror before... Sometimes there's something on the ceiling that catches my eye.


Reminds me of this picture I saw on Facebook which was captioned:

"Why do you have a framed picture of your ceiling fan?"


----------



## john4200 (Nov 1, 2009)

Grace "Sheepdog" Van Pelt


----------



## dwit (May 5, 2004)

What episode(name) aired this past Sunday? I missed it.

New episode or rerun? Thanks.


----------



## john4200 (Nov 1, 2009)

dwit said:


> What episode(name) aired this past Sunday? I missed it.
> 
> New episode or rerun? Thanks.


Rerun. It seems the show is on hiatus until March.


----------



## dwit (May 5, 2004)

john4200 said:


> Rerun. It seems the show is on hiatus until March.


Thanks.


----------



## Azlen (Nov 25, 2002)

john4200 said:


> Rerun. It seems the show is on hiatus until March.


Which makes the outlook for this show after this season dubious at best. Skipping February sweeps is not a good sign.


----------



## WO312 (Jan 24, 2003)

Azlen said:


> Which makes the outlook for this show after this season dubious at best. Skipping February sweeps is not a good sign.


I think Feb sweeps will be dominated by the Olympics, so I wonder how many other new episodes of other shows we will see.


----------



## dwit (May 5, 2004)

Azlen said:


> Which makes the outlook for this show after this season dubious at best. Skipping February sweeps is not a good sign.


I don't know. I really like the show this season.

Although, I always wondered why they put it on Sunday evenings, with the scheduling unpredictability and all.


----------



## Church AV Guy (Jan 19, 2005)

WO312 said:


> I think Feb sweeps will be dominated by the Olympics, so I wonder how many other new episodes of other shows we will see.


:up:

That's my take on it as well. The Olympics will be a juggernaut, so why waste new episodes of any show when you know darn good and well that no one will be watching?


----------



## busyba (Feb 5, 2003)

Church AV Guy said:


> :up:
> 
> That's my take on it as well. The Olympics will be a juggernaut, so why waste new episodes of any show when you know darn good and well that no one will be watching?


Maybe this should go in the Things That Baffle You thread, but I don't get why anyone watches that. I mean, yeah, sports are great, but the TV coverage of the Olympics in the US are always so badly produced that I gave up on them a long time ago.

I think networks that don't just surrender and actually provide some counter-programming will do very well for themselves.

In any case, I've got plenty of movies on the TiVo waiting to be seen....


----------



## DavidTigerFan (Aug 18, 2001)

busyba said:


> Maybe this should go in the Things That Baffle You thread, but I don't get why anyone watches that. I mean, yeah, sports are great, but the TV coverage of the Olympics in the US are always so badly produced that I gave up on them a long time ago.
> 
> I think networks that don't just surrender and actually provide some counter-programming will do very well for themselves.
> 
> In any case, I've got plenty of movies on the TiVo waiting to be seen....


I agree to an extent, but I think the problem is that they can't really target the audience. During the olympics, I imagine the demo that watches hockey is alot different than those that watch figure skating.

However, remember that Survivor previously started in what was thought the "doldrums" of the summertime TV season.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

DavidTigerFan said:


> However, remember that Survivor previously started in what was thought the "doldrums" of the summertime TV season.


Although there's a difference a time when nobody's watching TV, and a time when everybody's watching something else.

Regardless of busyba and me, a LOT of people REALLY like to watch the Olympics.


----------



## Jon J (Aug 23, 2000)

In light of how many markets are now metered are sweeps months as important as in the past?


----------



## astrohip (Jan 7, 2003)

First new Mentalist in what seems like forever. Good episode, the new characters are starting to jell.

Mentalist 2.0 is fun to watch again, but the side story, which I confess I don't even remember what it's about, is not needed. Don't want any Mentalist 1.0 drama, just stick to the new stuff.


----------



## Alfer (Aug 7, 2003)

Are they trying to soften up the oh so bland/tough black chief guy? I mean he was acting so out of character when the toy arrived. The way his character has been up to now, I would have thought he would have tossed the toy in the trash the minute he opened it up because he's so "hardcore".

I guess I lost track of what story #2 was about...meaning the plot with VanPelt and crew and that ending. Was it something to do with phone tapping?


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

Alfer said:


> Are they trying to soften up the oh so bland/tough black chief guy? I mean he was acting so out of character when the toy arrived. The way his character has been up to now, I would have thought he would have tossed the toy in the trash the minute he opened it up because he's so "hardcore".


I was also a little annoyed that the boy toys were sci-fi action figure type stuff, and the girl toy was a princess wand. Way to pander to gender stereotypes!


----------



## john4200 (Nov 1, 2009)

Alfer said:


> I guess I lost track of what story #2 was about...meaning the plot with VanPelt and crew and that ending. Was it something to do with phone tapping?


Judging from past behavior, I expect the writers do not know either. They'll just write silly things like that until they figure it is time to come up with a conclusion to the arc, and then they will send the arc out with a whimper.


----------



## Church AV Guy (Jan 19, 2005)

Alfer said:


> I guess I lost track of what story #2 was about...meaning the plot with VanPelt and crew and that ending. Was it something to do with phone tapping?


Rigsby and VanPelt found out that a number of ex-CBI were being killed. They were trying to track down a link common to the killings.

They really needed to have included a bit of "Previously on..." to get us back up to speed. It took me quite a while to remember.


----------



## eddyj (Jun 20, 2002)

My wife, who has a great memory (but does not pay close attention to the Mentalist) did not even remember the phone plotline. I could not remember details either. That is the problem with these long hiatuses, when you have arcs. I have abandoned many a series when by the time the new season comes, I can't remember what was going on before.


----------



## markz (Oct 22, 2002)

I don't recall it either. And was there any fallout after:



Spoiler



The former CBI boss/Internal Affairs guy died? I don't remember anything about that after the actual death. That will probably do bad things to Jayne mentally, since he called in his favor and it ended up in the guy being killed.


----------



## lew (Mar 12, 2002)

markz said:


> I don't recall it either. And was there any fallout after:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


The incident you spoileized happened in the last few minutes of the episode. The fallout will occur in future episodes.


----------



## markz (Oct 22, 2002)

lew said:


> The incident you spoileized happened in the last few minutes of the episode. The fallout will occur in future episodes.


Thanks! I am usually multitasking and wasn't sure if I missed it.


----------



## loubob57 (Mar 19, 2001)

markz said:


> I don't recall it either. And was there any fallout after:
> 
> 
> 
> ...





Spoiler



I'm gonna miss those freaky eyes of his.


----------



## eddyj (Jun 20, 2002)

So what was



Spoiler



in the box from his safe? Did we ever find out?


----------



## JYoung (Jan 16, 2002)

eddyj said:


> So what was
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Yes.



Spoiler



It was the tongue of the man who assaulted his mother.


----------



## eddyj (Jun 20, 2002)

I had totally and completely forgotten that.


----------



## john4200 (Nov 1, 2009)

Why are people spoilerizing things in an official season thread for the current season?


----------



## eddyj (Jun 20, 2002)

Spoiler



Because we want to.


----------



## bacevedo (Oct 31, 2003)

Were there new writers/producers for the last couple of episodes, especially the Gray Water one?

The writing and acting just seemed lower caliber than what we are used to. Some of the interactions, especially the greetings/hugs between the FBI/ex CBI and Van Pelt/Rigsby were so forced.

Plus, the story line with Van Pelt and Rigsby and the bugging of phones is more of the old Red John story line that we don't need anymore. Just be done with that arc already.

The reboot had a chance to make it fun and fresh again. But now they are falling into the old traps.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

And the snow effects were sometimes terrible...it was obvious that it was just the usual LA mountains with sparse fake snow, and sometimes just the dirt CGI'd white! Sometimes they'd CGI the background mountains white...and sometimes they wouldn't.

I had to laugh at the car that was thick with dust as it drove through the "snow."


----------



## AeneaGames (May 2, 2009)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> And the snow effects were sometimes terrible...it was obvious that it was just the usual LA mountains with sparse fake snow, and sometimes just the dirt CGI'd white! Sometimes they'd CGI the background mountains white...and sometimes they wouldn't.
> 
> I had to laugh at the car that was thick with dust as it drove through the "snow."


Ah, thank heavens I wasn't the only one who noticed that! It was snowing, there was 'snow' on the ground but nothing in the trees and bushes! Utter weirdness!

It's extra weird since some LA mountains do actually have snow, but they probably didn't have a cabin there to film...


----------



## eddyj (Jun 20, 2002)

Both the wife and I commented on how poor this episode was. I hope they get better again, I'd like it to be renewed.


----------



## DavidTigerFan (Aug 18, 2001)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> And the snow effects were sometimes terrible...it was obvious that it was just the usual LA mountains with sparse fake snow, and sometimes just the dirt CGI'd white! Sometimes they'd CGI the background mountains white...and sometimes they wouldn't.
> 
> I had to laugh at the car that was thick with dust as it drove through the "snow."


Everyone is a critic about CGI snow these days....


----------



## john4200 (Nov 1, 2009)

I was disappointed that both Grace and Rigsby were unable to overcome a plump old lady. They are both supposed to be pretty bad ass (and smart, in Grace's case). But it seemed like they lost about 30 IQ points this episode.


----------



## eddyj (Jun 20, 2002)

john4200 said:


> I was disappointed that both Grace and Rigsby were unable to overcome a plump old lady. They are both supposed to be pretty bad ass (and smart, in Grace's case). But it seemed like they lost about 30 IQ points this episode.


Yup. She acted stupidly, he was worse. I hate that.


----------



## john4200 (Nov 1, 2009)

eddyj said:


> Yup. She acted stupidly, he was worse. I hate that.


I could not believe that Grace did not even consider that a car she sees, in the middle of nowhere but just a short hop from where she was prisoner, was quite likely to contain people involved in her kidnapping.


----------



## eddyj (Jun 20, 2002)

john4200 said:


> I could not believe that Grace did not even consider that a car she sees, in the middle of nowhere but just a short hop from where she was prisoner, was quite likely to contain people involved in her kidnapping.


And how bad Rigsby was at clearing the house and letting the sister get the drop on him.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

john4200 said:


> I was disappointed that both Grace and Rigsby were unable to overcome a plump old lady. They are both supposed to be pretty bad ass (and smart, in Grace's case). But it seemed like they lost about 30 IQ points this episode.


When she put down the frikkin' gun and went to duct-tape Grace, why didn't Grace just grab her by the throat, drop her to the ground, and squeeze with everything she's got while banging her head against the floor repeatedly and violently?

The whole episode seemed like they rushed-filmed a rough draft with no planning. Not to harp on the snow, but there didn't need to BE any snow. They could have just re-written it so it was an isolated mountain cabin full stop. Hell, it wouldn't even have taken any rewriting...as far as I can recall, there was no actual mention of the snow; it was just...there. Sort of

VERY sloppy episode, even by Mentalist standards (and it is generally a pretty lazy show, but it usually has enough innate charm and polish to slide by).


----------



## loubob57 (Mar 19, 2001)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> When she put down the frikkin' gun and went to duct-tape Grace, why didn't Grace just grab her by the throat, drop her to the ground, and squeeze with everything she's got while banging her head against the floor repeatedly and violently?


I thought the same exact thing!


----------



## JYoung (Jan 16, 2002)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> When she put down the frikkin' gun and went to duct-tape Grace, why didn't Grace just grab her by the throat, drop her to the ground, and squeeze with everything she's got while banging her head against the floor repeatedly and violently?
> 
> The whole episode seemed like they rushed-filmed a rough draft with no planning. Not to harp on the snow, but there didn't need to BE any snow. They could have just re-written it so it was an isolated mountain cabin full stop. Hell, it wouldn't even have taken any rewriting...as far as I can recall, there was no actual mention of the snow; it was just...there. Sort of
> 
> VERY sloppy episode, even by Mentalist standards (and it is generally a pretty lazy show, but it usually has enough innate charm and polish to slide by).


It's things like this that make me very concerned for the upcoming Gotham tv show.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

JYoung said:


> It's things like this that make me very concerned for the upcoming Gotham tv show.


We can only hope that he's spending so much time on Gotham, getting it JUST RIGHT, that he's neglecting Mentalist. 

(Wouldn't be the first time a show has suffered because the creator is distracted by something shiny & new...Joss Whedon has done it once or twice, JJ Abrams on just about every show he's ever made...)


----------



## verdugan (Sep 9, 2003)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> Not to harp on the snow, but there didn't need to BE any snow. They could have just re-written it so it was an isolated mountain cabin full stop. Hell, it wouldn't even have taken any rewriting...as far as I can recall, there was no actual mention of the snow; it was just...there. Sort of.


They used the snow as the hint for finding them because the baddie bought all the cold gear stuff. But just like the show you're telling yourself "but it's cold in Colorado too!"

Yes, but that's why the bad guy "luckily" also bought guidebooks for Albuquerque and Santa Fe ... which would've been enough of a hint thus not needing the fake snow.

Sorry, I got nothing.


----------



## busyba (Feb 5, 2003)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> (Wouldn't be the first time a show has suffered because the creator is distracted by something shiny & new...Joss Whedon has done it once or twice, JJ Abrams on just about every show he's ever made...)


The season of South Park that coincided with Matt and Trey putting together _Bigger, Longer, and Uncut_ was pretty bad.


----------



## astrohip (Jan 7, 2003)

[aside: seems strange to be posting this to the "Red John" thread. That seems like a lifetime ago for this show.]

So we have two episodes left this season. And from what I read, two episodes left in the series.

Lisbon & Jane. What will she do? What will HE do?

Your predictions?


----------



## Alfer (Aug 7, 2003)

They both go their separate ways and Jane just settles in to his new life.


----------



## astrohip (Jan 7, 2003)

Interview with series creator, Bruno Heller, along with leads Simon Baker and Robin Tunney. The season-ending arc centered on Lisbons D.C. debate and how its stirring something in Jane. Read on for their thoughts about navigating that sticky wicket and how the May 18 (series?) finale will split the audience 50-50

http://tvline.com/2014/05/09/the-mentalist-season-6-preview-jane-lisbon-finale/


----------



## JYoung (Jan 16, 2002)

Truth be told, I don't really care if Jane and Lisbon get together.
I've never noticed the supposed romantic chemistry that they have.

Quite honestly, I felt that Rigbsy and Cho had more romantic chemistry than Jane and Lisbon.


----------



## astrohip (Jan 7, 2003)

JYoung said:


> Quite honestly, I felt that Rigbsy and Cho had more romantic chemistry than Jane and Lisbon.


LOL!


----------



## bacevedo (Oct 31, 2003)

JYoung said:


> Truth be told, I don't really care if Jane and Lisbon get together.
> I've never noticed the supposed romantic chemistry that they have.
> 
> Quite honestly, I felt that Rigbsy and Cho had more romantic chemistry than Jane and Lisbon.


That made me laugh, right there.

I agree. The only reason that there ever seemed like something was there between Jane and Lisbon was when other characters mentioned it, not by the interactions between them. I don't really care either way.

I didn't realize they only had two episodes left this season (and possibly series) to resolve the human smuggling and organ harvesting mystery.


----------



## smbaker (May 24, 2003)

astrohip said:


> Your predictions?


Lisbon's boyfriend is a Red John stooge [or whatever the series has instead of Red John stooges these days].


----------



## GoPackGo (Dec 29, 2012)

Renewed for one more, possibly 13 episode season: http://www.deadline.com/2014/05/mentalist-renewed-seventh-season-last-cbs/


----------



## bacevedo (Oct 31, 2003)

astrohip said:


> Lisbon & Jane. What will she do? What will HE do?
> 
> Your predictions?


Jane will tell Lisbon he loves her, but that he won't ever be able to be a good partner for her, so she should move to DC with the other guy.

Lisbon will be heartbroken, but go to DC because she knows that, even though she loves Jane, he isn't emotionally available for their relationship.

All of next season will be the tension between them apart and "chance" meetings working FBI cases.

Bryan


----------



## Alfer (Aug 7, 2003)

bacevedo said:


> *Jane will tell Lisbon he loves her*, but that he won't ever be able to be a good partner for her, so she should move to DC with the other guy.
> 
> Lisbon will be heartbroken, but go to DC because she knows that, even though she loves Jane, he isn't emotionally available for their relationship.
> 
> ...


Well you had at least one part right. 

Overall I just didn't/don't feel any chemistry with these two characters at all. So not sure how entertaining it will be to see the two of them all lovey-dovey next season.


----------



## Fool Me Twice (Jul 6, 2004)

If they had to transform Jane into a romcom buffoon to get to the ending they wanted, it probably wasn't the ending the show warranted.


----------



## john4200 (Nov 1, 2009)

Fool Me Twice said:


> If they had to transform Jane into a romcom buffoon to get to the ending they wanted, it probably wasn't the ending the show warranted.


I was thinking the same thing as Jane was running to the airport to profess his love. Did they hire the writers from a bad romantic comedy?

But it is not the end of the show. It is renewed for a seventh season.


----------



## betts4 (Dec 27, 2005)

john4200 said:


> I was thinking the same thing as Jane was running to the airport to profess his love. Did they hire the writers from a bad romantic comedy?
> 
> But it is not the end of the show. It is renewed for a seventh season.


I was thinking this too. I mean, the part about him struggling to get on to the plane.

He should have been able to con/talk his way on to the plane better than having to run around the back and jump a fence.

I wish this had been the last episode. The final scene was fine as an ending. I don't want to watch them do the "castle" thing. Too bad it got renewed.


----------



## Sixto (Sep 16, 2005)

Loved the ending. While I was happy it was renewed, I would have been fine with that being the last scene.


----------



## bacevedo (Oct 31, 2003)

Alfer said:


> Well you had at least one part right.
> 
> Overall I just didn't/don't feel any chemistry with these two characters at all. So not sure how entertaining it will be to see the two of them all lovey-dovey next season.


Yeah, with all of the Red John fake outs over the years, I didn't think they would make it so easy for them to just get together at the end. These writers have been the biggest teases over the years and they changed their ways!


----------



## eddyj (Jun 20, 2002)

Well, when they filmed it, they thought it would be the series finale. It did not get renewed until very recently. So they probably thought that was it!


----------



## smbaker (May 24, 2003)

Now that it's been renewed, I hope they spend some time turning Lisbon's (former) love interest into a Red John stooge. 

Sure, the Red John thing got old, but I've been missing having some kind of multi-episode arc going on. The whole human smuggling plot didn't work for me. I want them to add a new adversary who is Jane's equal.


----------



## verdugan (Sep 9, 2003)

smbaker said:


> Sure, the Red John thing got old, but I've been missing having some kind of multi-episode arc going on. The whole human smuggling plot didn't work for me. I want them to add a new adversary who is Jane's equal.


The head of the smuggling rink is out on bail and they don't have much/any evidence on him since the doctor hung himself.

There's potential to turn that into a multi-series arc -- especially if it's a short season.


----------

