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 (367,911 Views)
Dave Sullivan
Default Avatar

I doubt Pam is hiding anything secretive- she's just a overzealous gossip. Les is clearly the dodgy one and I think their grandson will put in an appearance soon enough.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Professor Plum
Default Avatar

Is it possible that "Charlie" is the Cokers Grandson?
Just livin' in perfect New Zealand!
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
MrJames
Member Avatar

It would feel a little strange for Charlie to meet Pam, and then for Pam to talk about Charlie to Les and mention their actual grandson in the same conversation.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Jade
Member Avatar

Soetmo
5 May 2014, 18:32
What if the chosen characters' actor quits and wants to leave before then? Or goes on maternity leave, or gets ill....
I suppose he could use a back up plan with 14 other people. Wasn't Peggy supposed to kill Archie? Either way I am not a fan and the more endings the worse the aftermath will be for the actors. I would have filmed it from the killers perspective (ie cant see their face) show how Lucy died and then at the very end give us a shot of their face. Which could be done day of filming and let that person know from the off. I am sure they can trust one cast member and give us more of a feeling of what it was like for Lucy's last moments.
Your approval is neither desired nor required.

Julia Smith "We decided to go for a realistic, fairly outspoken type of drama which could encompass stories about homosexuality, rape, unemployment, racial prejudice, etc., in a believable context. Above all, we wanted realism".

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Professor Plum
Default Avatar

Jade
8 May 2014, 22:02
Soetmo
5 May 2014, 18:32
What if the chosen characters' actor quits and wants to leave before then? Or goes on maternity leave, or gets ill....
I suppose he could use a back up plan with 14 other people. Wasn't Peggy supposed to kill Archie? Either way I am not a fan and the more endings the worse the aftermath will be for the actors. I would have filmed it from the killers perspective (ie cant see their face) show how Lucy died and then at the very end give us a shot of their face. Which could be done day of filming and let that person know from the off. I am sure they can trust one cast member and give us more of a feeling of what it was like for Lucy's last moments.
I agree, that way, the killer knows why they are looking guilty in scenes between now and the reveal.
Just livin' in perfect New Zealand!
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Professor Plum
Default Avatar

MrJames
8 May 2014, 21:15
It would feel a little strange for Charlie to meet Pam, and then for Pam to talk about Charlie to Les and mention their actual grandson in the same conversation.
Sorry, still a couple of weeks behind and hadnt seen that. :)
It was just something I thought of, after reading some comments on here.
Just livin' in perfect New Zealand!
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mrs Peel
Member Avatar

The Cokers' grandson is on a gap year from uni. He's in his late teens-early twenties. Charlie is in his mid-thirties. It was abundantly clear tonight that whilst Charlie was acquainted with Les, he wasn't so with Pam.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Professor Plum
Default Avatar

Mrs Peel
9 May 2014, 00:15
The Cokers' grandson is on a gap year from uni. He's in his late teens-early twenties. Charlie is in his mid-thirties. It was abundantly clear tonight that whilst Charlie was acquainted with Les, he wasn't so with Pam.
thanx :)

Trouble with being a bit behind, you get these great theories, but they have already been disproved. :(
Just livin' in perfect New Zealand!
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Ross
Member Avatar
I'm in the kitchen eating a biscuit
I really hope Les and Pam aren't involved. That would be awful. A complete cop-out.
Massive thanks to NickM for this wonderful signature! :)

Posted Image
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
*Betty*
Member Avatar


Might be nothing but Aleks left suddenly from the Vic tonight after Charlie did.
Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
WalfordE20
Member Avatar

After tonight Charlie Cotton has become my top suspect. I'm not sure how or why, but I definitely think he's involved- the subtle mention of Ian, Max mentioning Lucy; it has to mean something. I also think it's very telling that tonight was the first time since Good Friday that we've seen Roxy, with Ronnie nowhere to be seen.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
MrJames
Member Avatar

Lauren tonight:

"Don't worry Tramp, it's ONLY Abi."

Hmm.

Surely, SURELY, we can rule Lauren out? It's far too Janine pre-live-episode for it to be convincing for her to be the killer.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Charper
Member Avatar

I'm trying to articulate my thoughts on this but my brain is going haywire.

I'm very much backing Mrs Peel's theory. I think it's funny that Ronnie hasn't been seen since Lucy was murdered - therefore we as viewers can't see her reaction.

Also tonights episode had at least one character who's connected to Lucy's murder. It was so focused on the potential of it being Jake that we forget about this other mystery - who is Charlie Cotton? I could easily see him being a drug dealer - these 'night shifts' that are now known not to be for the police, could easily be drug deals he does at night.

I did think initially that it would Ronnie and Aleks as this villain pair but the more I see of Aleks, he does actually have more conscience, he took the fall for Jake taking Tosh's beer and was concerned for Jake tonight. Jake will remember something that night and die in some circumstance, and I think Aleks will unravel that as he knows what Ronnie is like.

I do think this 30th anniversary could be a massive thing and trump the 25th if done right. I also think somehow this 30th could conclude Nick's story, he's not dead and he will return and part of me thinks he'll be redeemed in some way.

Probably talking out my arse but who knows! These theories are great to read though.

I always thought Stacey's key was to a safe or something that contained a stash of money in case she needed to make a getaway with Lily. It's connected to this I believe as it's no coincidence it ended up with Lauren.

I've never read an Agatha Cristie novel before but I'm very tempted to now as this is where DTC has drawn inspiration from. I will also need to watch Broadchurch too.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mr Branning
Member Avatar

One of the thing that confuses me about the whole Charlie drug dealer theory is why is he now staying attached to Dot? If he was faking Nick's death to stash drugs, he's got what he wanted. Why would he now want to move away somewhere with Dot? Surely, she's more of a hindrance than a help. It seems more as if he wants something from her, rather than her being a means to an end.

And I'm still not convinced he's in cahoots with Ronnie. They've shown absolutely no indication that they've ever had any contact, even in scenes just between the two of them.

I'd love all this to link together but right now it just seems implausible. I like the fact we have two genuine mysteries that we can't crack at the moment.
Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Shaz1022
Member Avatar

Les is so shifty and the way he keeps reassuring Pam that business will pick up . I'm 90% convinced it's him .
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Charper
Member Avatar

Mr Branning
9 May 2014, 23:33
One of the thing that confuses me about the whole Charlie drug dealer theory is why is he now staying attached to Dot? If he was faking Nick's death to stash drugs, he's got what he wanted. Why would he now want to move away somewhere with Dot? Surely, she's more of a hindrance than a help. It seems more as if he wants something from her, rather than her being a means to an end.

And I'm still not convinced he's in cahoots with Ronnie. They've shown absolutely no indication that they've ever had any contact, even in scenes just between the two of them.

I'd love all this to link together but right now it just seems implausible. I like the fact we have two genuine mysteries that we can't crack at the moment.
Well psychopaths are great liars and actors. They'd never make it seen in public like they ever knew each other previously. And they'd wanna hide it from viewers too.

He'd also stay with Dot because if he's in it with Ronnie then he has to be around, also he could keep an eye on things and make sure nothing came to light. It'd also be suspicious if the grandson suddenly disappeared, he's keeping up appearances. Tonights episode and the previous showed that he wasn't really in to being there, he wanted to get off to his 'night shift'. But he has to as to keep up the pretense. He was more keen on staying once he found out more of Nick's history of attempting to kill Dot.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mrs Peel
Member Avatar

Charper
9 May 2014, 23:28
I'm trying to articulate my thoughts on this but my brain is going haywire.

I'm very much backing Mrs Peel's theory. I think it's funny that Ronnie hasn't been seen since Lucy was murdered - therefore we as viewers can't see her reaction.

Also tonights episode had at least one character who's connected to Lucy's murder. It was so focused on the potential of it being Jake that we forget about this other mystery - who is Charlie Cotton? I could easily see him being a drug dealer - these 'night shifts' that are now known not to be for the police, could easily be drug deals he does at night.

I did think initially that it would Ronnie and Aleks as this villain pair but the more I see of Aleks, he does actually have more conscience, he took the fall for Jake taking Tosh's beer and was concerned for Jake tonight. Jake will remember something that night and die in some circumstance, and I think Aleks will unravel that as he knows what Ronnie is like.

I do think this 30th anniversary could be a massive thing and trump the 25th if done right. I also think somehow this 30th could conclude Nick's story, he's not dead and he will return and part of me thinks he'll be redeemed in some way.

Probably talking out my arse but who knows! These theories are great to read though.

I always thought Stacey's key was to a safe or something that contained a stash of money in case she needed to make a getaway with Lily. It's connected to this I believe as it's no coincidence it ended up with Lauren.

I've never read an Agatha Cristie novel before but I'm very tempted to now as this is where DTC has drawn inspiration from. I will also need to watch Broadchurch too.
"The Murder of Roger Ackroyd" ... it will sound eerily familiar.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mr Branning
Member Avatar

Charper
10 May 2014, 00:30
Mr Branning
9 May 2014, 23:33
One of the thing that confuses me about the whole Charlie drug dealer theory is why is he now staying attached to Dot? If he was faking Nick's death to stash drugs, he's got what he wanted. Why would he now want to move away somewhere with Dot? Surely, she's more of a hindrance than a help. It seems more as if he wants something from her, rather than her being a means to an end.

And I'm still not convinced he's in cahoots with Ronnie. They've shown absolutely no indication that they've ever had any contact, even in scenes just between the two of them.

I'd love all this to link together but right now it just seems implausible. I like the fact we have two genuine mysteries that we can't crack at the moment.
Well psychopaths are great liars and actors. They'd never make it seen in public like they ever knew each other previously. And they'd wanna hide it from viewers too.

He'd also stay with Dot because if he's in it with Ronnie then he has to be around, also he could keep an eye on things and make sure nothing came to light. It'd also be suspicious if the grandson suddenly disappeared, he's keeping up appearances. Tonights episode and the previous showed that he wasn't really in to being there, he wanted to get off to his 'night shift'. But he has to as to keep up the pretense. He was more keen on staying once he found out more of Nick's history of attempting to kill Dot.
In public, sure I can understand. But not in private - behind closed doors when it was just Ronnie and Charlie. That wasn't a meeting between two major drug dealers who'd known each other for months. Yes the producers want to hide it from viewers, but why put in such a blatantly contradictory scene at all if there was an established relationship there?

And he wouldn't have to be around for Ronnie's sake because, according to Mrs Peel's theory, he wouldn't have been around in the months prior to his arrival. He and Ronnie would have had a business relationship before he arrived in Albert Square and could quite easily have one without him there, which would minimise the risk. Him staying in Walford is just asking for trouble.

As for him staying to keep up the pretence - what pretence? I don't understand, in this theory, what Charlie is doing right now. Nick's funeral was a rouse to hide drugs - but Nick's funeral was over a month ago. He's got what he came for, so why would he still be hovering round Walford? Like I said, he could quite easily continue his business arrangement with Ronnie from afar, and it wouldn't be hard for him to disappear, just as easily as he magically appeared in Dot's life.

It's a nice theory, but Charlie's actions since the funeral and Lucy's death have created too many plot holes for me.
Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
*Betty*
Member Avatar


Tbf he isn't still around Walford.

It was very clear at the begining of the week that Dot hadn't seen Charlie, so she lied to get him back in Walford. He kept trying to get away when he realised their was no emergency. He is reluctant to spend anytime with Dot, but now he has realised his secret could come out via Les, he is taking an interest and trying to get Dot away from the Corkers.

At the end of the day, Charlie won't want to leave the country because if he does then he ruins the whole drugs convo. So by popping up and keeping an eye on Dot, he keeps his secret in tact and his life in London also.
Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mr Branning
Member Avatar

*Betty*
10 May 2014, 11:11
Tbf he isn't still around Walford.

It was very clear at the begining of the week that Dot hadn't seen Charlie, so she lied to get him back in Walford. He kept trying to get away when he realised their was no emergency. He is reluctant to spend anytime with Dot, but now he has realised his secret could come out via Les, he is taking an interest and trying to get Dot away from the Corkers.

At the end of the day, Charlie won't want to leave the country because if he does then he ruins the whole drugs convo. So by popping up and keeping an eye on Dot, he keeps his secret in tact and his life in London also.
He is still around Walford - he can't be living too far away if he's told Dot he works at the local police station and is able to visit without much notice.

But even if he weren't this is still flawed - if he was far, far away, it wouldn't matter if Les told Dot (and there would be no reason why Les would tell Dot as Les would then implicate himself which certainly wouldn't help the business. The only reason Les hinted at telling Dot was so he could get money off Charlie) because it's unlikely Dot would be able to trace Charlie.

And I don't see how leaving Walford or the country would affect the drugs situation as, if he is working with Ronnie, she would have been managing perfectly well before he came to Walford. Mrs Peel is suggesting this business relationship has been going on for a while, and yet Charlie only arrived in Walford in March and Ronnie was away in Ibiza from January - March. Clearly these two are able to run things whilst keeping a distance. Plus, presumably Les doesn't know about Ronnie's involvement and so she would be a much safer bet to be fronting the whole thing.

Popping up and keeping an eye on Dot is the worst way to keep his secret, because Dot has people looking out for her. It seems needlessly risky for a scheme which would have been tied up weeks ago. He has absolutely no reason to keep visiting Dot.

I feel a bit like a broken record, but Charlie's recent conduct is completely at odds with the theory so it's not something I can buy at the moment.
Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Create a free forum in seconds.
Learn More · Register for Free
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · EastEnders Current & Future · Next Topic »
Add Reply