Theory: Max Caulfield Is More Than Just a Bystander — She's the Hidden Variable

[Yunu]

1. She’s Always There — Just in Time

In Life is Strange, Max just happens to be in the bathroom when Chloe is shot. She rewinds time and saves her. Convenient? Maybe. But when the body of Rachel Amber is discovered, Max is again deeply tied to the investigation. She always shows up just before or just after something catastrophic happens.

In Double Exposure, she discovers her best friend Safi has been murdered — in two timelines. Once is a coincidence. Twice is a pattern.

Red Flag: In crime investigations, someone always at the scene — especially without a solid alibi — would instantly be a person of interest. Max has none, because her alibi is “I rewound time.”

2. Motive Through Obsession

Max’s intense emotional bonds, especially to Chloe and now Safi, walk the line between protective and possessive. She’s constantly manipulating time to “fix” things, but doing so often alienates or hurts others.

If she can’t control outcomes through time, could she resort to more drastic measures? Consider this: what if her power starts to feel like a burden, and emotionally she begins to collapse under the weight of failed attempts to save the people she loves?

Psychological Profile: Young woman, introverted, emotionally intense, high anxiety, unstable reality (due to constant timeline changes). That’s the perfect profile for someone with dissociative tendencies or even blackouts.

3. No One Questions the Girl With Powers

Let’s be honest — Max is the only one in the story with supernatural abilities, and no one even considers she could be responsible? That’s a major oversight.

In Double Exposure, she even moves between timelines — a perfect cover for interfering, escaping, or even committing acts no one else can account for. Who would suspect her if the timeline she committed the crime in no longer exists?

She literally holds reality hostage — and no one questions what she's hiding behind those rewinds.

4. She Manipulates Evidence

Max can change past events, which means she can:

Destroy or hide evidence

Prevent someone from being in a specific location

Alter alibis

Frame others (intentionally or not)

This is exactly what an advanced criminal would do — control the scene not by fleeing it, but by editing it.

Think of it this way: Max isn’t avoiding justice. She’s editing justice.

5. Everyone Else Pays the Price

In every game, people die or suffer around Max. Chloe dies (multiple times). Rachel is lost. Kate nearly kills herself. Safi is murdered — in two realities. But Max walks away each time.
Why? Because she’s the narrative “hero”? Or because she’s removing herself from suspicion by staying emotionally fragile and helpful?
Conclusion: The Perfect Unreliable Hero
Max Caulfield may be a protagonist, but she’s also the one person who could absolutely commit murder — and never be caught. She’s in the right place, at the right time, with the right powers, and with emotional instability that gives her motive. Once? Fine. Twice? That’s a pattern.
Maybe the real twist in Double Exposure isn’t who killed Safi — but what Max is willing to erase to protect herself from the truth.

[rmsgrey]

Yes, clearly Rachel Amber's disappearance and death 6 months before Max came to town must be tied to Max, and not to the people with a storm bunker set up as a darkroom which has photos of her death and burial along with kidnap photos of multiple young women, all taken before Max came to town.

And Max is definitely the only person with powers. There definitely isn't anyone else running around with supernatural abilities.

And Safi is definitely dead on the second timeline - that's why it's called the "also dead" timeline, not the "alive" timeline.

And, of course, she was right there in Haven Springs when the mine disaster happened, or in Seattle when that cop car flipped onto a cop.

Or, just possibly, you've got a bunch of facts wrong, which means your entire argument is unsound...

[Yunu]

Originally posted by rmsgrey:

Yes, clearly Rachel Amber's disappearance and death 6 months before Max came to town must be tied to Max, and not to the people with a storm bunker set up as a darkroom which has photos of her death and burial along with kidnap photos of multiple young women, all taken before Max came to town.

And Max is definitely the only person with powers. There definitely isn't anyone else running around with supernatural abilities.

And Safi is definitely dead on the second timeline - that's why it's called the "also dead" timeline, not the "alive" timeline.

And, of course, she was right there in Haven Springs when the mine disaster happened, or in Seattle when that cop car flipped onto a cop.

Or, just possibly, you've got a bunch of facts wrong, which means your entire argument is unsound...

Appreciate the sarcasm — but let’s dig into this a bit more, because I think you’re oversimplifying what the theory is actually suggesting.
1. Rachel’s Death Preceding Max’s Arrival Doesn’t Clear Her
You're right: Rachel disappeared before Max came back. But timelines get fuzzy in a story where the main character can rewind, reset, and traverse timelines. My point isn't that Max killed Rachel — it’s that she always ends up at the heart of events with heavy emotional weight and narrative power. The presence of evidence in the Dark Room doesn’t remove the thematic question: why is Max always the one who uncovers everything? Coincidence once is fine. Twice is a pattern. Multiple times is suspicious.
2. Max Isn't the Only One With Powers — But She’s the Only One We Follow
Yes, other characters may have powers (Daniel, Sean, possibly others), but Max is the one whose powers include manipulating time itself. That gives her the unique ability to not only change outcomes, but erase her own involvement. The theory isn’t invalidated by the possibility of others having powers — it’s strengthened by how isolated Max’s ability to cover her tracks really is.
3. Safi Is Dead in the “Also Dead” Timeline
Exactly. She dies in both timelines. Which proves my point: Max is the only constant in both. That’s not a narrative fluke — that’s a signal. The devs are asking us to pay attention to how tightly Max is wrapped around these deaths. She doesn’t have to be the one who pulled the trigger. But if you’re investigating? You’d start to wonder why she’s always there when it counts.
4. Not Being at Haven Springs or Seattle Proves Nothing
This is a bit of a strawman. I never claimed she was at every single tragic event across the LiS universe. The point is: when Max is involved, something terrible happens. Chloe. Rachel. Kate. Safi. She's not around the periphery — she's the epicenter. Every time. That pattern matters — narratively and suspiciously.
5. The Theory Isn’t About Guilt — It’s About Suspicion
This is where a lot of replies miss the point. I’m not saying Max is a serial killer. I’m saying that if you remove narrative bias and treat the events of the games like a real investigation, Max would absolutely be a suspect. Because she:
Has the means (time manipulation)
Has the opportunity (present at key deaths)
Has the motive (deep emotional connections and trauma)
And most dangerously, has the ability to erase or edit her own involvement
Conclusion
The theory doesn’t need Max to be guilty. It just needs her to be uncomfortably close to every major death, able to edit her reality, and never questioned. That alone makes her suspicious. And in a world built on memory, perception, and consequence, that's more than enough to build a compelling case.

[rmsgrey]

Depending on the choice at the end of LIS, Max has been associated with two deaths, or one (un)natural disaster and one death, roughly a decade apart.

Steph has also been associated with two incidents, rather less than a decade apart - Rachel and Chloe's murders by Nathan Prescott, and Gabe's murder by Typhon.

Two incidents separated by a decade is barely even a coincidence, never mind compelling evidence.

And in order to make any sort of case against Max, you need to thread a needle between people not knowing about Max's powers in order to suspect her, and people knowing Max well enough to dismiss her as a suspect.

[Yunu]

Originally posted by rmsgrey:

Depending on the choice at the end of LIS, Max has been associated with two deaths, or one (un)natural disaster and one death, roughly a decade apart.

Steph has also been associated with two incidents, rather less than a decade apart - Rachel and Chloe's murders by Nathan Prescott, and Gabe's murder by Typhon.

Two incidents separated by a decade is barely even a coincidence, never mind compelling evidence.

And in order to make any sort of case against Max, you need to thread a needle between people not knowing about Max's powers in order to suspect her, and people knowing Max well enough to dismiss her as a suspect.

That's a solid critique — and it actually sharpens the core tension of the theory. You're absolutely right: to build a real case against Max, you'd have to walk a tricky line between what people know in-universe (which is limited) and what we as players see from a broader perspective.
But here's the thing: the theory doesn't argue that Max should be arrested — it argues that in a more grounded universe, she would be looked at with suspicion. Because even if she’s not causing these tragedies, she’s still uniquely tied to them in a way no one else is. That’s where Steph and others differ — Steph doesn’t have the means or the omniscient access to time itself. Max does.
Yes, two events a decade apart might not be compelling on its own. But the difference is that Max has the power to erase evidence, rewrite her presence, and choose the version of events that favors her. That’s not just a coincidence — it’s control. And that makes her proximity to tragedy less explainable, not more.
You’re right about the "threading the needle" problem, though. The public may not know about her powers, but if they did, even in whispers or rumors, it would radically shift how people view her. Especially in Double Exposure, where suspicion starts creeping in. The theory plays in that shadow space — where doubt flickers but never lands.

[Qiana]

Originally posted by Yunu:

Originally posted by rmsgrey:

And Safi is definitely dead on the second timeline - that's why it's called the "also dead" timeline, not the "alive" timeline.

Appreciate the sarcasm [...]

Exactly. She dies in both timelines. Which proves [...]

Hmmm ... rmsgrey says, "Safi is not dead in the 2nd timeline," and Yunu responds, "Exactly. She dies in both timelines." ?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x4oAa6sxnc8&t=34733s