Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Welcome to Walford Web, the online home of EastEnders' discussion since 1997. We cover EastEnders news, discussion and spoilers. Join the discussion and make your voice heard! We hope you enjoy your visit.

You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.

Join our community!

If you're wondering what EastEnders is, click here to see what all the fuss is about.

If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
Who Killed Lucy?; All the theories
Topic Started: 20 Apr 2014, 05:49 (367,912 Views)
Dan
Member Avatar


It can still be rooted in truth. It was also said we were going to find out a lot more about Lucy after her death suggesting that she had links to characters we may not automatically think she had links to.

The only thing DTC has got badly wrong so far is Lucy being on cocaine. Cocaine is a stimulant and its effects are to make people wired, hyperactive, jittery, lacking in focus, loud and paranoid. Its comedowns are heavy in terms of depression and paranoia. Lucy showed no signs of this, if they were going to do it, they should have hinted at it rather than just do a shock reveal.

The Ryan theory is a very interesting one and quite possible considering that he was desperate and on the run in connection with Rob's death the last time we saw him.

I would agree that Nick is, for once, innocent. But I do get the feeling he may have known something was going to go down with Dot without maybe knowing what or when as he did try to call Dot twice. He doesn't usually call to shoot the breeze. Perhaps he tried to warn her but gave up when he was told to go away.

I guess the question would be, why use Dot and why pretend to be a police officer? If Charlie tries to use Dot's as a base of operations or attracts any kind of attention there, the police would be all over that and he'll soon be in it up for his neck for impersonating a police officer.

Posted Image

Walford is about to change, lives are about to be destroyed, alliances will begin and the residents will never be the same again. Welcome to "Dungeon". New fan fic, coming soon...

Thanks Nick M for the brilliant sig!
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
WalfordE20
Member Avatar

Jake Wood has said they're filming 15 endings, with the actors not knowing who's guilty until transmission.

http://www.digitalspy.co.uk/soaps/s2/eastenders/news/a568729/eastenders-jake-wood-on-lucy-mystery-15-endings-will-be-filmed.html#~oDoQVSBLfCkk8g

I'm all for secrecy, but quite frankly this is a terrible idea. Look at the mess we were stuck with after the 25th. How will we get any aftermath at all if the actors don't know who the killer is?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mormon Girl
Default Avatar

WalfordE20
5 May 2014, 16:09
Jake Wood has said they're filming 15 endings, with the actors not knowing who's guilty until transmission.

http://www.digitalspy.co.uk/soaps/s2/eastenders/news/a568729/eastenders-jake-wood-on-lucy-mystery-15-endings-will-be-filmed.html#~oDoQVSBLfCkk8g

I'm all for secrecy, but quite frankly this is a terrible idea. Look at the mess we were stuck with after the 25th. How will we get any aftermath at all if the actors don't know who the killer is?
Eastenders filmed a few endings for who shot Phil.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mr Branning
Member Avatar

WalfordE20
5 May 2014, 16:09
Jake Wood has said they're filming 15 endings, with the actors not knowing who's guilty until transmission.

http://www.digitalspy.co.uk/soaps/s2/eastenders/news/a568729/eastenders-jake-wood-on-lucy-mystery-15-endings-will-be-filmed.html#~oDoQVSBLfCkk8g

I'm all for secrecy, but quite frankly this is a terrible idea. Look at the mess we were stuck with after the 25th. How will we get any aftermath at all if the actors don't know who the killer is?
He said that they 'might' not know who the killer is until transmission - the actors seem to be very much in the dark about what's going to happen at the moment.

The good thing is they, as you say, have the 25th to learn from. The reveal/live episode was fantastic but we then got months of dross following it - hopefully this time the aftermath will be just as powerful as the initial scenes have been.

Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mormon Girl
Default Avatar

Mr Branning
5 May 2014, 16:57
WalfordE20
5 May 2014, 16:09
Jake Wood has said they're filming 15 endings, with the actors not knowing who's guilty until transmission.

http://www.digitalspy.co.uk/soaps/s2/eastenders/news/a568729/eastenders-jake-wood-on-lucy-mystery-15-endings-will-be-filmed.html#~oDoQVSBLfCkk8g

I'm all for secrecy, but quite frankly this is a terrible idea. Look at the mess we were stuck with after the 25th. How will we get any aftermath at all if the actors don't know who the killer is?
He said that they 'might' not know who the killer is until transmission - the actors seem to be very much in the dark about what's going to happen at the moment.

The good thing is they, as you say, have the 25th to learn from. The reveal/live episode was fantastic but we then got months of dross following it - hopefully this time the aftermath will be just as powerful as the initial scenes have been.

I feel really sorry for Jake and his family :(
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
WalfordE20
Member Avatar

Mormon Girl
5 May 2014, 17:02
Mr Branning
5 May 2014, 16:57
I feel really sorry for Jake and his family :(
Why? What have I missed? :huh:
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mormon Girl
Default Avatar

WalfordE20
5 May 2014, 17:09
http://t.co/q5Dq57HJbh
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
WalfordE20
Member Avatar

Oh how sad. Losing a pet can be just as harrowing as losing a relative. Beautiful dog.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
soetmo
Member Avatar

It was okay after the Live though, because Jake and Lacey filmed a two hander really soon after and they aired it quickly. So it can be done.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mr Branning
Member Avatar

It's also quite sad that 15 endings have to be shot in order to stop the identity of the killer being leaked out. I wouldn't blame DTC for being cautious - it would be terrible to have 10 months worth of plotting and filming undone because an actor accidentally (or otherwise) let the outcome slip.
Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
soetmo
Member Avatar

What if the chosen characters' actor quits and wants to leave before then? Or goes on maternity leave, or gets ill....
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mrs Peel
Member Avatar

MrJames
4 May 2014, 23:40
DTC said that the entire story is rooted in truth, reality and the killer will makes total sense.

As brilliant as it would be, Ronnie killing a young girl she has never interacted with as a result of a high-scale drugs business which involves faking the death of a local elderly pensioner's son, doesn't scream truth, reality and sense.
For a moment, cast aside your biased view of Ronnie as Madame Tragedy personified and look at her dispassionately.

She is a psychopath, and psychopaths exist in their own world with their own idea of truth, reality and sense. They don't empathise; instead, they obsess. They reckon themselves superior to other people and revel in the fact that they are able to manipulate normal people into believing that the psychopath is something he/she is not.

How many viewers were duped into believing Michael Moon was the devoted father to Scarlett, when he was actually obsessing on the child as an object in whom he took little interest until his wife returned and wanted her daughter?

Cast your mind back to the scene in the Walford jail where Ronnie was being questioned by the police psychiatrist. The woman asked her if she felt anything, keeping Tommy and watching his parents go through enormous grief. Ronnie shrugged her shoulders and said that she didn't really know the Moons and they meant nothing to her.

Ronnie obsesses about Roxy to the point that she is as much a control freak re Roxy as Archie was re Ronnie. As Roxy, herself, unwittingly stated, Ronnie wants Roxy all to herself. Further afield, she will also obsess, or attempt to do so, over any young blonde Mitchell woman as a replacement Danielle - and don't forget she tried to replace Danielle before by breaking up Joel's marriage, shrugging off his three daughters and then unceremoniously dumping him when she found out he'd had a vasectomy.

Ronnie wouldn't give a rat's arse about selling drugs to any young blonde woman on the Square, be she Lucy Beale, Abi Branning or Nancy Carter, just as long as she wasn't a Mitchell. And as psychopaths are manipulators, what better a candidate to manipulate than the gullible, lonely stepmother of your ex, who just conveniently happens to have a wayward son. Ronnie is a psychopath. They are masters at fitting in, and charming people when they really don't give a shit.

Truth? Truth is that Lucy Beale had a coke habit and bought the drug from Ronnie Mitchell. It didn't make one iota of difference to Ronnie whose child Lucy was or that she was a young girl with whom she'd never interacted. Dealers aren't supposed to interact with their clients. They don't want to get involved. It makes for bad business.

Reality? Ronnie is a psychopath. She's murdered and not in self-defence. She's even beaten up the brother of her murder victim as a warning. She's a villain and in this show, villains - real villains - have shelf-lives.

Sense? Ronnie killed Lucy because Lucy was finishing with Ronnie as her dealer. Maybe Lucy threatened to tell Ian or Phil what Ronnie was doing. Ronnie knew she was drinking in the last chance saloon re Phil because he told her he wanted none of her business to crop up on his doorstep. Maybe she killed the girl accidentally, but she moved her body and staged it to look like a mugging. And she took her phone. Psychopaths, who kill, often take something from the victim as a trophy. She has Carl's phone. I'll bet she's got Lucy's.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mrs Peel
Member Avatar

Dan
5 May 2014, 08:59
I guess the question would be, why use Dot and why pretend to be a police officer? If Charlie tries to use Dot's as a base of operations or attracts any kind of attention there, the police would be all over that and he'll soon be in it up for his neck for impersonating a police officer.

If they're transporting cocaine, and a hefty amount of it, they'd need a way of doing so without attracting attention - from the authorities as well as a lot of other low-lifes with whom these people deal. Who'd think of looking for drugs in a coffin? So someone in Walford would have to die. Dot is an obvious choice. She's known to Ronnie, especially through Jack, who was a favourite of Dot's. Through Jack, she would have known the history of Dot and Nick and would have remembered the last appearance of Nick on the Square and the circumstances under which he left.

Also, Dot is of a generation who would never question a policeman or a person in a position of authorithy. Ronnie "happened" to be at Dot's house when the "police" arrived to inform her of Dot's death. Their whole appearance was bizarre, especially when you compare "Charlie" and the WPC to the police duo who advised Ian of Lucy's death.

In Dot's instance, they provided no identification. Neither introduced themselves. If the girl did, she certainly didn't introduce "Charlie." She wore no identifying paraphernalia on her hi-viz, and they stood on the doorstep. There was one point where Dot asked a question and the woman stumbled and looked at "Charlie" as though for permission to speak. He only nodded and didn't say a word. Also, we don't even know where he's assigned. Dot could easily ring Walford nick (bad pun) and ask for DC Cotton. She's too trusting.

Contrast this with the coppers who showed up on Ian's doorstep - booted and suited, identifying themselves immediately with warrant cards and asking to go inside. Done properly. Dot was chosen because she was easy pickings.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
MrJames
Member Avatar

Mrs Peel
5 May 2014, 19:20
MrJames
4 May 2014, 23:40
DTC said that the entire story is rooted in truth, reality and the killer will makes total sense.

As brilliant as it would be, Ronnie killing a young girl she has never interacted with as a result of a high-scale drugs business which involves faking the death of a local elderly pensioner's son, doesn't scream truth, reality and sense.
For a moment, cast aside your biased view of Ronnie as Madame Tragedy personified and look at her dispassionately.

She is a psychopath, and psychopaths exist in their own world with their own idea of truth, reality and sense. They don't empathise; instead, they obsess. They reckon themselves superior to other people and revel in the fact that they are able to manipulate normal people into believing that the psychopath is something he/she is not.

How many viewers were duped into believing Michael Moon was the devoted father to Scarlett, when he was actually obsessing on the child as an object in whom he took little interest until his wife returned and wanted her daughter?

Cast your mind back to the scene in the Walford jail where Ronnie was being questioned by the police psychiatrist. The woman asked her if she felt anything, keeping Tommy and watching his parents go through enormous grief. Ronnie shrugged her shoulders and said that she didn't really know the Moons and they meant nothing to her.

Ronnie obsesses about Roxy to the point that she is as much a control freak re Roxy as Archie was re Ronnie. As Roxy, herself, unwittingly stated, Ronnie wants Roxy all to herself. Further afield, she will also obsess, or attempt to do so, over any young blonde Mitchell woman as a replacement Danielle - and don't forget she tried to replace Danielle before by breaking up Joel's marriage, shrugging off his three daughters and then unceremoniously dumping him when she found out he'd had a vasectomy.

Ronnie wouldn't give a rat's arse about selling drugs to any young blonde woman on the Square, be she Lucy Beale, Abi Branning or Nancy Carter, just as long as she wasn't a Mitchell. And as psychopaths are manipulators, what better a candidate to manipulate than the gullible, lonely stepmother of your ex, who just conveniently happens to have a wayward son. Ronnie is a psychopath. They are masters at fitting in, and charming people when they really don't give a shit.

Truth? Truth is that Lucy Beale had a coke habit and bought the drug from Ronnie Mitchell. It didn't make one iota of difference to Ronnie whose child Lucy was or that she was a young girl with whom she'd never interacted. Dealers aren't supposed to interact with their clients. They don't want to get involved. It makes for bad business.

Reality? Ronnie is a psychopath. She's murdered and not in self-defence. She's even beaten up the brother of her murder victim as a warning. She's a villain and in this show, villains - real villains - have shelf-lives.

Sense? Ronnie killed Lucy because Lucy was finishing with Ronnie as her dealer. Maybe Lucy threatened to tell Ian or Phil what Ronnie was doing. Ronnie knew she was drinking in the last chance saloon re Phil because he told her he wanted none of her business to crop up on his doorstep. Maybe she killed the girl accidentally, but she moved her body and staged it to look like a mugging. And she took her phone. Psychopaths, who kill, often take something from the victim as a trophy. She has Carl's phone. I'll bet she's got Lucy's.
Please, I'm a fan of Ronnie as a character, but I'm well aware that she has moved away from the 'tragic heroine' label. I don't need you to remind me in that quite rude and presumptuous manner.

I'm not for one second proclaiming that you're wrong with your theory as we all have them weird and wonderful. I liked your theory and I think there is still a good chance that Ronnie is involved/the killer, but I am also entitled to offer a counter-opinion. This is a thread based around complete speculation after all.

If Ronnie were to be revealed as the killer tomorrow, then we'd need a back-breaking explanation as to why. If she's revealed as the killer in February next year we will probably have been on a journey with the character by then, and thus it will hopefully make sense. At the moment, it is inconceivable and incomprehensible for the everyday viewer to imagine Ronnie as the killer and that is the angle I was coming from.

By your own admission, Ronnie is a psychopath and so is lacking in sense, a sense that we as the viewer do have. A sense that blocks us from understanding completely why Ronnie would so such a thing. That's all.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Dan
Member Avatar


I can totally accept that Dot would instinctively trust an authority figure like a policeman. That's the reason why scams of this nature or a financial nature are perpetrated against the elderly as they are seen as more trusting.

I can also see that they could have arrange Nick's "death" if Ronnie is indeed involved. What they will need an excellent explanation for is why Charlie is pretending to be Dot's grandson and why it's important to gain Dot's trust. I would guess that they might think Charlie's presence on the Square wouldn't raise suspicion if he were "related" to Dot but with police now sniffing about the Square, all it needs is a single mention of Dot's police officer grandson Charlie Cotton for suspicion to grow.

And yes, the way they told Dot was quite clearly suspicious and not a mistake especially when compared with how Emma and the other detective told Ian.

Posted Image

Walford is about to change, lives are about to be destroyed, alliances will begin and the residents will never be the same again. Welcome to "Dungeon". New fan fic, coming soon...

Thanks Nick M for the brilliant sig!
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mr Branning
Member Avatar

The Ronnie theory is a nice idea but I can't see it coming to fruition. My main gripe with it is the Ronnie/Charlie scene we had last month after Ronnie knocked Lola over. It was just those two alone in the house and they definitely weren't acting as if they were in the middle of some elaborate drugs scheme. It was awkward, it was unfamiliar and it was distant. There was no hint of any underlying relationship and that was with nobody else present in the house. Their body language said awkwardly opening up to each other rather than meeting up in the middle of their drugs plot.

I think Ronnie will be involved somehow, but just don't see her and Charlie teaming up as the resident drug lords.

I suppose we'll get more of an idea when Yvonne shows up next week.
Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
MrJames
Member Avatar

The first arrest is to be made next week. Watch out, it kind of gives away who Lauren's meeting will be with later this week:

http://www.digitalspy.co.uk/soaps/s2/eastenders/spoilers/a567663/an-arrest-is-made-over-lucys-murder.html#~oDr4doudrIv1nz
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mrs Peel
Member Avatar

MrJames
5 May 2014, 21:05
If Ronnie were to be revealed as the killer tomorrow, then we'd need a back-breaking explanation as to why.
But she's not going to be, and if she were, it wouldn't be difficult to present the fact that she'd been dealing drugs, using the boxing club as a front for that. In point of fact, that would have been something she'd have easily observed and absorbed from Phil, who, when he and Shirley briefly fronted the R and R, allowed Ryan Molloy to deal on the premises, for a cut of the profit.

Look, the fact that Lucy had a coke habit came out of the blue, didn't it? We saw nothing of that in her behaviour, and until this storyline, you actually saw very little of Lucy. In relation to other characters, we've actually seen very little of Ronnie. I'm just basing my opinion on the fact that DTC (a) is a fan of Agatha Christie's and knows how her plotlines work and (b) said this was very much along the lines of Broadchurch, which was extremely Christie-esque.

Quote:
 
If she's revealed as the killer in February next year we will probably have been on a journey with the character by then, and thus it will hopefully make sense.


DTC, himself, said there would be a twist in the tale around about Christmas time.

Quote:
 
At the moment, it is inconceivable and incomprehensible for the everyday viewer to imagine Ronnie as the killer and that is the angle I was coming from.


To some viewers, most of whom are avid Ronnie fans, but to viewers who see the character dispassionately, it's obvious what she is and of what she is capable. The moment SJS identified Michael Moon as a psychopath, it was obvious what was going to happen to Janine, what he was going to do and why he did what he did, both to Janine and Alice.

Why is it inconceiveable to imagine Ronnie as a killer? She's killed before and shown no remorse. She's taken a child, held that child for four months and shrugged off any concern. Instead, she went about threatening the child's father. Ronnie shows no empathy and no remorse. If the situation merits it, Ronnie could easily and without compunction, kill again - as opposed to Stacey, who, clearly wouldn't, having shown remorse at the killing of Archie.

Quote:
 
By your own admission, Ronnie is a psychopath and so is lacking in sense, a sense that we as the viewer do have. A sense that blocks us from understanding completely why Ronnie would so such a thing. That's all.


If you understand what a psychopath is, you'd understand that they have no reason for killing. Ronnie killed once. Once she crossed that Rubicon, it will be very easy for her to kill again. For psychopaths who kill, it's actually a thrill. If you recognise what Ronnie is - and the actress, herself, has described her as a villain who's detached from reality - then there should be no difficulty in realising that this is a person who could kill and go about her business as if nothing had happened.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
MrJames
Member Avatar

Mrs Peel
6 May 2014, 00:26
MrJames
5 May 2014, 21:05
If Ronnie were to be revealed as the killer tomorrow, then we'd need a back-breaking explanation as to why.
But she's not going to be, and if she were, it wouldn't be difficult to present the fact that she'd been dealing drugs, using the boxing club as a front for that. In point of fact, that would have been something she'd have easily observed and absorbed from Phil, who, when he and Shirley briefly fronted the R and R, allowed Ryan Molloy to deal on the premises, for a cut of the profit.

Look, the fact that Lucy had a coke habit came out of the blue, didn't it? We saw nothing of that in her behaviour, and until this storyline, you actually saw very little of Lucy. In relation to other characters, we've actually seen very little of Ronnie. I'm just basing my opinion on the fact that DTC (a) is a fan of Agatha Christie's and knows how her plotlines work and (b) said this was very much along the lines of Broadchurch, which was extremely Christie-esque.

Quote:
 
If she's revealed as the killer in February next year we will probably have been on a journey with the character by then, and thus it will hopefully make sense.


DTC, himself, said there would be a twist in the tale around about Christmas time.

Quote:
 
At the moment, it is inconceivable and incomprehensible for the everyday viewer to imagine Ronnie as the killer and that is the angle I was coming from.


To some viewers, most of whom are avid Ronnie fans, but to viewers who see the character dispassionately, it's obvious what she is and of what she is capable. The moment SJS identified Michael Moon as a psychopath, it was obvious what was going to happen to Janine, what he was going to do and why he did what he did, both to Janine and Alice.

Why is it inconceiveable to imagine Ronnie as a killer? She's killed before and shown no remorse. She's taken a child, held that child for four months and shrugged off any concern. Instead, she went about threatening the child's father. Ronnie shows no empathy and no remorse. If the situation merits it, Ronnie could easily and without compunction, kill again - as opposed to Stacey, who, clearly wouldn't, having shown remorse at the killing of Archie.

Quote:
 
By your own admission, Ronnie is a psychopath and so is lacking in sense, a sense that we as the viewer do have. A sense that blocks us from understanding completely why Ronnie would so such a thing. That's all.


If you understand what a psychopath is, you'd understand that they have no reason for killing. Ronnie killed once. Once she crossed that Rubicon, it will be very easy for her to kill again. For psychopaths who kill, it's actually a thrill. If you recognise what Ronnie is - and the actress, herself, has described her as a villain who's detached from reality - then there should be no difficulty in realising that this is a person who could kill and go about her business as if nothing had happened.
I would just like to end our discussion, if I may, by saying that I am very much a fan of your theory, particularly because it combines several elements of things that are seemingly unconnected. And Ronnie being the killer is 110% one that I can see coming to fruition. I have a little notebook to keep track of everybody that I think may have done it (for whatever motive) and Ronnie and Charlie have been on there for a number of weeks.

I think, if done correctly, Ronnie being the murderer would be all kinds of amazing.

At this moment in time though, I do naturally lean more towards Whitney or Abi simply because those are the ones that are ringing most true to me. If it were to be Ronnie, there is just nothing at the moment, for me, to grasp hold of other than the fact that she's killed before. Ironic that in everyday life being a killer previously would be enough to convince me, but in soap nothing is sure :D.

Ronnie the Serial Killer just doesn't mix with the Lucy story, yet, for me. In ten months time, it probably could.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
WalfordE20
Member Avatar

A few more little nuggets to build on tonight.

Billy gave a few suspicious glances in the flat, and was looking at the newspaper. Let's not forget he had reason to be angry with her.

Les and Charlie's suspicious connection resurfaced tonight alongside the murder aftermath. It's possible that Les was referring to another 'secret' other than what happened to Nick, and Pam seems a little shifty too.

Jake blacked out on the night of Lucy's murder so he's become the obvious suspect, but I think he could remember something before he leaves.

If it was Jake that sent Lucy to the Common by chance then her killer must have simply followed her rather than anything pre-meditated, which puts a new spin on things as it seemed the emailer wanted to confront her.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Free Forums. Reliable service with over 8 years of experience.
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · EastEnders Current & Future · Next Topic »
Add Reply