"I'll keep her in mourning, on your behalf"

[BretMaverick777 5,010]

So, the scene in the trailer where Morgan menacingly confronts a teenage boy while the kid's mother weeps over her husband's grave.  "When she's done crying over your father, maybe I'll keep her in mourning, on your behalf." 

 

I know I'm not the first one to suggest he's talking to Jack Marston, or that the weeping widow is Abigail.  I also know that most people debunked that theory a long time ago.   But....hear me out.  I think that scene's worth a revisit. 

 

Let's suppose that scene takes place in 1906, at pretty much the end of RDR2.   John Marston was just "left for dead" in the botched ferry robbery, and he pretty much disappears from Dutch van der Linde's life for the next 5 years.   But what if Marston faked his own death?  

 

Suppose his "death" on the ferry was entirely pre-arranged.  What if John and Abigail cooked up a scenario where he'd make it look like Dutch betrayed and murdered him, but it's all a scam?  The gang AND lawmen will assume Marston is dead, and not come looking for him. They make Uncle part of the scenario, in that after Marston's "death," Uncle takes on the role of caretaker to the Widow Abigail's ranch at Beecher's Hope, at least until Jack grows old enough to manage it himself.   Widow Abigail and young Jack continue to run errands and buy supplies for the farm in Blackwater.  Meanwhile, John lays low and never leaves the ranch, and makes sure to hide whenever it looks like there's visitors approaching.   The ruse works for several years until a suspicious Edgar Ross starts tracking Abigail's visits to Blackwater, and ultimately concludes that John Marston is still alive.  

 

This could also reveal something of the relationship between Arthur Morgan and John Marston, too.  The scene from the trailer might indicate Morgan begins to suspect Marston's still alive, too, but grudgingly lets the Marstons get away with it, but with one final stern warning to young Jack that if John Marston ever tries to come back or double-cross Dutch in any way, Morgan will "keep Abigail in 'mourning,' on Jack's behalf."  

[jamesos 117]

Well considering the fact that Jack is a f*cking teenager during the events of RDR and that the dude in the trailer has a beard, I think your theory is kind of ruled out.

Not really a beard, but he has stubble.

Another thing is the fact that the land they're on looks nothing like Beechers Hope.

[Lemoyne outlaw 1,919]

sounds interesting. i like the theory. but it almost sounds similar to the michael faking his death to his crew. except with the government knowing about it. but yea i doubt the theory is true. but i do like all these ideas.

[BretMaverick777 5,010]

2 hours ago, UnknownDivision said:

Well considering the fact that Jack is a f*cking teenager during the events of RDR and that the dude in the trailer has a beard, I think your theory is kind of ruled out.

Not really a beard, but he has stubble.

Another thing is the fact that the land they're on looks nothing like Beechers Hope.

It wouldn't be Beecher's Hope.  The idea is that Arthur confronting 12-year old Jack in 1906 would take place somewhere else. Then Ross would give the Marstons Beecher's Hope as a witness protection house.

13 minutes ago, confederatestatesgta said:

sounds interesting. i like the theory. but it almost sounds similar to the michael faking his death to his crew. except with the government knowing about it. but yea i doubt the theory is true. but i do like all these ideas.

Yeah, that's exactly the analogy I'd draw...Marston as Michael DeSanta.

[jamesos 117]

6 hours ago, BretMaverick777 said:

It wouldn't be Beecher's Hope.  The idea is that Arthur confronting 12-year old Jack in 1906 would take place somewhere else. Then Ross would give the Marstons Beecher's Hope as a witness protection house.

 

Dude what are you talking about? Beechers Hope was John Marstons family home, that wasnt a witness protection house. Marstons family was taken into custody while John was hunting down Bill, Javier and Dutch. John wasnt immediately apprehended by Ross after he was shot on the ferry. He rebuilt his life and moved to Beechers Hope with his family, then Ross confronted John years after. 

[BretMaverick777 5,010]

4 hours ago, UnknownDivision said:

Dude what are you talking about? Beechers Hope was John Marstons family home, that wasnt a witness protection house. Marstons family was taken into custody while John was hunting down Bill, Javier and Dutch. John wasnt immediately apprehended by Ross after he was shot on the ferry. He rebuilt his life and moved to Beechers Hope with his family, then Ross confronted John years after. 

"Family home?"   Dude, I hope you're not suggesting John inherited Beecher's Hope.   Marston was an orphan, adopted by Dutch when the former was still a teenager.  Marston's biological parents died penniless.   The Marstons didn't move to Beecher's Hope until 1906 or later. 

 

And the whole point of this thread and my theory is that due to the *fact* that we don't know what happened in 1906, it's entirely possible that Marston was able to leave the outlaw life unmolested because he cut a plea deal with the law.   Every conversation in RDR1 between Marston and his former gangster brothers, including Dutch himself, show conflicting stories about what happened in the end.  John continues to assert that Dutch left him for dead, but everyone else saw it differently.   It's John's word against theirs, and only RDR2 can show who was telling the truth.  

 

Dutch, Bill, and Javier imply -- hell, that's too light a word; they KNOW -- that John was a snitch.   And tbh, that makes a whole lot more sense than believing a notorious outlaw with a bounty on his head like Marston would have been allowed to simply walk away after the ferry robbery and peacefully settle down on a farm without law enforcement noticing (let alone the survivors of the gang).   LEAST of all Edgar Ross.   You may not like the way it repaints John Marston's character, but the evidence points to John cutting a deal with Ross at the end of RDR2 so that his family can live in peace.   But once Ross leaves the Blackrose agency and works his way up to become the director of the new Bureau of Investigation, he renegs on his truce with the Marstons since it only applied to Blackrose, not to a federal law enforcement agency.  

Edited July 15, 2018 by BretMaverick777

[jamesos 117]

On 7/15/2018 at 1:12 AM, BretMaverick777 said:

"Family home?"   Dude, I hope you're not suggesting John inherited Beecher's Hope.   Marston was an orphan, adopted by Dutch when the former was still a teenager.  Marston's biological parents died penniless.   The Marstons didn't move to Beecher's Hope until 1906 or later. 

 

And the whole point of this thread and my theory is that due to the *fact* that we don't know what happened in 1906, it's entirely possible that Marston was able to leave the outlaw life unmolested because he cut a plea deal with the law.   Every conversation in RDR1 between Marston and his former gangster brothers, including Dutch himself, show conflicting stories about what happened in the end.  John continues to assert that Dutch left him for dead, but everyone else saw it differently.   It's John's word against theirs, and only RDR2 can show who was telling the truth.  

 

Dutch, Bill, and Javier imply -- hell, that's too light a word; they KNOW -- that John was a snitch.   And tbh, that makes a whole lot more sense than believing a notorious outlaw with a bounty on his head like Marston would have been allowed to simply walk away after the ferry robbery and peacefully settle down on a farm without law enforcement noticing (let alone the survivors of the gang).   LEAST of all Edgar Ross.   You may not like the way it repaints John Marston's character, but the evidence points to John cutting a deal with Ross at the end of RDR2 so that his family can live in peace.   But once Ross leaves the Blackrose agency and works his way up to become the director of the new Bureau of Investigation, he renegs on his truce with the Marstons since it only applied to Blackrose, not to a federal law enforcement agency.  

You do raise a good point that I neglected to think about. We dont really know what happens in between the ferry incident and the events of Red Dead Redemption. Still though, although I partially agree that we might see more regarding what happens with John in RDR 2, I really doubt Arthurs talking to Jack in that scene.

[DexMacLeod 1,446]

On 7/15/2018 at 3:12 AM, BretMaverick777 said:

"Family home?"   Dude, I hope you're not suggesting John inherited Beecher's Hope.   Marston was an orphan, adopted by Dutch when the former was still a teenager.  Marston's biological parents died penniless.   The Marstons didn't move to Beecher's Hope until 1906 or later. 

 

And the whole point of this thread and my theory is that due to the *fact* that we don't know what happened in 1906, it's entirely possible that Marston was able to leave the outlaw life unmolested because he cut a plea deal with the law.   Every conversation in RDR1 between Marston and his former gangster brothers, including Dutch himself, show conflicting stories about what happened in the end.  John continues to assert that Dutch left him for dead, but everyone else saw it differently.   It's John's word against theirs, and only RDR2 can show who was telling the truth.  

 

Dutch, Bill, and Javier imply -- hell, that's too light a word; they KNOW -- that John was a snitch.   And tbh, that makes a whole lot more sense than believing a notorious outlaw with a bounty on his head like Marston would have been allowed to simply walk away after the ferry robbery and peacefully settle down on a farm without law enforcement noticing (let alone the survivors of the gang).   LEAST of all Edgar Ross.   You may not like the way it repaints John Marston's character, but the evidence points to John cutting a deal with Ross at the end of RDR2 so that his family can live in peace.   But once Ross leaves the Blackrose agency and works his way up to become the director of the new Bureau of Investigation, he renegs on his truce with the Marstons since it only applied to Blackrose, not to a federal law enforcement agency.  

You got me going down a rabbit hole of Redemption cutscenes on youtube trying to find where it was even implied that Bill, Javier and Dutch "KNOW" that John was a snitch and I just can't find it. Bill is the only one that even seems to harbor any ill will towards John and it seems pretty clear that that's about Bill's own inferiority complex more than anything. 

 

Either way I'm not too big a fan of this theory. As someone already pointed out, it's very similar to Michael in GTA V and the plot points that have been confirmed already sound too similar to The Lost and the Damned. That's just too much redundancy for my tastes.

 

Also, the "Maybe when your Mother's done mourning your Father, I'll keep her in black, on your behalf" line couldn't have been said to Jack in 1906. The guy in the trailer looks at least 7 years older than Jack was in 1911. Not to mention how unlikely it is that Rockstar would put such a big, potentially near end of game scene in a trailer.

[Cutter De Blanc 14,249]

This topic title bugs me every time. "Maybe I'll keep her in BLACK," not "keep her in mourning"

 

He says, "maybe when your mother's finished mourning your father"

 

It's more clever that way, and somehow at the same time more thuggish and brutal

[BretMaverick777 5,010]

5 hours ago, DexMacLeod said:

You got me going down a rabbit hole of Redemption cutscenes on youtube trying to find where it was even implied that Bill, Javier and Dutch "KNOW" that John was a snitch and I just can't find it. Bill is the only one that even seems to harbor any ill will towards John and it seems pretty clear that that's about Bill's own inferiority complex more than anything.

Relevant Bill dialogue to John: 

 

Dutch always said you were an arrogant SOB!

You never tried to save me before. You only seemed to save yourself.

Nobody wanted you around John!

Dutch, Javier and I wanted you dead! We all did.

You always was a traitor ya bastard orphan!

I always knew you were a coward.

You always did think I was an idiot.

Poor John...you always was weak minded.

 

Javier dialogue:

 

Come on, you're not going to shoot your own brother, are you? We was family.

We thought you was dead, brother. I promise. I'm telling the truth.

You got it all wrong, brother. I've always loved you, even now!

 

Dutch dialogue:

 

Dutch: Looks like it's me and you, John. You should have stayed at home. Working for the government, John. After all I taught you. I'm ashamed.

Marston: I don't have a choice.

Dutch: There's always a choice! You're just too blind to see.

Marston: They got my family.

Dutch: Your family? Abigail was any man's wife, John. And Jack, he's another whore's son, just like you. You're weak. You always were. You never had the stomach for this.

Marston: For what? You got no idea what you're killin' for.

Dutch: You never could see what I see, John. You were too scared. You'll never get me to surrender! You better kill me, John!

Marston: If that's how it's gotta be.

 

 

Javier's dialogue is equivocal, mainly as he tries to grovel his way out certain death.   Bill and Dutch don't mince words, though....they call him weak-minded, cowardly, shameful, selfish, arrogant, a traitor.  
 

Quote

 

 

Either way I'm not too big a fan of this theory. As someone already pointed out, it's very similar to Michael in GTA V and the plot points that have been confirmed already sound too similar to The Lost and the Damned. That's just too much redundancy for my tastes.

 

 

Fair enough; not many people want to see John Marston revised into a terrible character.   But again, it comes down to John's word against the gang's, and that will include Arthur Morgan.  And again, how else do you explain the Marston family being allowed to settle in peace on a ranch out in the great wide open, visible to all, while there's still a big bounty on at least three of their heads?   And Edgar Ross, just a few miles down the road in Blackwater -- do you really think he wouldn't notice them for 5 years?   This is a guy who is literally obsessed with taking down Dutch and his whole gang for the entirety of both RDR1 and RDR2.  

 

For that matter, how do you explain John Marston's reaction to Ross' whole scheme?  Be honest....a guy like John wouldn't acquiesce to Ross' demands -- he'd find out where his wife and son are being held, by beating the info out of Archer and/or some other hapless Fed, and mount a rescue effort, either alone or by recruiting allies.   And if he still held any loyalty at all to the gang, he sure as hell would reject the missions to hunt them down and kill them.   John's reactions indicate that he knows Ross, that he grudgingly trusts him because he knows he's a lawman, even if he's a total jerk.   That means Ross will keep Abigail and Jack safe; that means Ross will stay true to his word and reunite the family at the end; that means John believes he has very little to worry about taking on some washed-up old bandits he's already betrayed once before.  

Edited July 20, 2018 by BretMaverick777

[DexMacLeod 1,446]

7 minutes ago, BretMaverick777 said:

Relevant Bill dialogue to John: 

 

"Dutch always said you were an arrogant SOB!"

 

"You never tried to save me before. You only seemed to save yourself."

Yeah, but neither of those lines really indicate anything about John being a snitch. The first is an example of Bill's petty inferiority thing and the second is just a reference to John leaving the gang.

[BretMaverick777 5,010]

5 hours ago, Cutter De Blanc said:

This topic title bugs me every time. "Maybe I'll keep her in BLACK," not "keep her in mourning"

 

He says, "maybe when your mother's finished mourning your father"

 

It's more clever that way, and somehow at the same time more thuggish and brutal

Fair enough.

[Mirror Park Resident 6,932]

One thing I never understood is how John and his family went from the outlaw living to a very big, nice ranch in a matter of not many years. A ranch in a region in which no other ranch is to be seen. Probably setting a ranch would be way easier in New Austin, where lands seem to be cheaper due to the (still) early colonization stage. I don't doubt that starting a ranch was gonna be very hard, but a ranch in the middle of West Elizabeth has good potential to become a primary resource supplier for Blackwater. Potential to grow its own legs and feed a working family for years.

 

Not saying John got that ranch thanks to the feds, I don't think R* is gonna pull another Michael De Santa that soon. But something smells off to me. Maybe just oversights. 

[BretMaverick777 5,010]

2 hours ago, Fluffy Sock said:

One thing I never understood is how John and his family went from the outlaw living to a very big, nice ranch in a matter of not many years. A ranch in a region in which no other ranch is to be seen. Probably setting a ranch would be way easier in New Austin, where lands seem to be cheaper due to the (still) early colonization stage. I don't doubt that starting a ranch was gonna be very hard, but a ranch in the middle of West Elizabeth has good potential to become a primary resource supplier for Blackwater. Potential to grow its own legs and feed a working family for years.

 

Not saying John got that ranch thanks to the feds, I don't think R* is gonna pull another Michael De Santa that soon. But something smells off to me. Maybe just oversights. 

True....that first paragraph.  I still think there may be a Michael DeSanta witness protection program vibe, but we'll see as more comes out. 

 

That damn ranch though....that place is constantly under siege.   Crows, cougars, poachers, rustlers, the US Army, FBI, ghost dogs, Mysterious Strangers, zombies....and almost impossible to defend unless you snipe from the corn silo.   Why would John even want it?   And why THE hell would he drag Uncle along to his homestead after the gangsta days, if he hated the old man so much?  

Edited July 22, 2018 by BretMaverick777