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 (367,910 Views)
Winters
Member Avatar

I just don't see how it conceivably can have been Ronnie if the killing is supposed to be a manslaughter and the killer himself doesn't even know he did it. Surely that would have no conncetion to Ronnie's character either way. And hasn't she already done one manslaughter?

One manslaughter, one manslaugher/murder, and one more manslaugher?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Jade
Member Avatar

Is the killing been confirmed as the person not knowing they did it!? Her body was dumped there, how could they not have known they killed her if they moved her body after death?
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
 
david
Default Avatar

Jake described the taxi driver who drove him and Lucy back to the square as tall, dark with a woman's name tattooed on his neck. Tattoo on the neck - I immediately thought Nick Cotton. Nick was fairly tall, dark hair with a tattoo on his neck. The tattoo seemed to change and move between his various appearances. At one stage it appeared to be a spider's web, but later it looked different and seemed to be further back. Does anyone know if he had anything written on it?

Could be a red herring of course!
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Cupcake
Member Avatar

Didn't it say in the initial press release that the person responsible for her death doesn't even know?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Jade
Member Avatar

Cupcake
10 May 2014, 17:11
Didn't it say in the initial press release that the person responsible for her death doesn't even know?
I cant remember just that makes no sense as she wasn't killed where she was found so she was dumped there. The killer must have known they killed her to do that? Has anyone got confirmation on this not knowing as it all seems to make no sense?
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
 
david
Default Avatar

I think there may be some confusion between characters and actors here. It has been said that the actors don't know if it was their character who killed Lucy. As far as I know. nothing has been said to indicate that character who killed Lucy doesn't know that they did it, or that it was only manslaughter. That the body was moved from the place that she died seems to suggest that it is probably murder.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Cupcake
Member Avatar

No, I distinctly remember it being said that the character themselves doesn't know they killed her. I can't remember where I saw it though.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
WalfordE20
Member Avatar

david
10 May 2014, 17:39
I think there may be some confusion between characters and actors here. It has been said that the actors don't know if it was their character who killed Lucy. As far as I know. nothing has been said to indicate that character who killed Lucy doesn't know that they did it, or that it was only manslaughter. That the body was moved from the place that she died seems to suggest that it is probably murder.
From the original statement:

'No one knows exactly what happened to Lucy on the night she died, except very few people - even the person responsible for her death'
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
TellyAddict
Member Avatar


From the original announcement on the BBC site,

Quote:
 
No one knows exactly what happened to Lucy on the night she died, except very few people - even the person responsible for her death.


http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/eastenders/posts/Death-in-Walford-Lucy-Beales-dramatic-exit

Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Cupcake
Member Avatar

Thanks! Was looking for it but wasn't getting very far.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Ross
Member Avatar
I'm in the kitchen eating a biscuit
Someone killed her - but didn't know. Someone else moved her body.
Massive thanks to NickM for this wonderful signature! :)

Posted Image
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
david
Default Avatar

WalfordE20
10 May 2014, 18:13
david
10 May 2014, 17:39
I think there may be some confusion between characters and actors here. It has been said that the actors don't know if it was their character who killed Lucy. As far as I know. nothing has been said to indicate that character who killed Lucy doesn't know that they did it, or that it was only manslaughter. That the body was moved from the place that she died seems to suggest that it is probably murder.
From the original statement:

'No one knows exactly what happened to Lucy on the night she died, except very few people - even the person responsible for her death'
You're right, that does seem to suggest that it was the character that didn't know s/he had killed Lucy. That is weird, I suppose it just could be careless writing and they meant the actor. However, the original slogan was "What killed Lucy?" not "Who killed Lucy?", which implies there is something mysterious about how she died.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
WalfordE20
Member Avatar

Ross
10 May 2014, 18:19
Someone killed her - but didn't know. Someone else moved her body.
This is where we risk things becoming contrived. Jake being innocent means that if someone else did indeed move the body, then three residents saw Lucy after she left the Square. Jake's email was the reason she went to the Common, so the killer would need a separate reason to be there, then someone else would need another reason to happen across her body. It's all a bit confusing.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
MuteBanana
Member Avatar

The killer didn't go to the common. When she was found by the person who did move her it seems they didn't want any attention at that location. Could be Nick. Maybe he's hiding out at those flats and didn't want the police snooping around.

Jake found her but knew how it would look and ran. Nice guy.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mrs Peel
Member Avatar

Mr Branning
10 May 2014, 00:46
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?

Read some Agatha Christie. In fact, you don't even have to read her books, just watch Murder on the Orient Express, not for the outcome, but for the context and detail related that happened off-screen. Christie is the mistress of action happening off-piste, shall we say?

Christie also fools her readers with unreliable narrative. This is exactly what DTC is doing here. Ronnie and Charlie would have had every opportunity to have made contact with each other and to have met before their "first" meeting on the Square. They're manipulators, and they're manipulating the audience. Ronnie has been doing that for years. Just look at the number of viewers making excuses for her actions.

Quote:
 
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.


There's every reason to believe the two did have a business arrangement prior to his arrival. If Charlie is into cocaine, perhaps he was Carl's supplier. Easy enough for Ronnie to have obtained his contact details. Roxy, herself, said Ronnie kept to the hotel room exclusively in Ibiza, and she arrived in Walford after Roxy. Plenty of time to have contacted and met with Charlie. Ronnie, allegedly, decided on holiday to buy the boxing club, a venture that's not exactly a moneymaker, but it would be a great front for cocaine transactions and money-laundering.

Quote:
 
Him staying in Walford is just asking for trouble.


Not at all. It would seem far more sinister and suspicious if Charlie had shown up, identified himself to Dot and then disappeared. Remember, at first, Dot was very loathe to believe who he was. And this is something psychopaths like doing - taking risks. At the moment, there's absolutely nothing to connect him (or Ronnie for that matter) to Lucy's death. Google Leopold and Loeb. Some psychopaths who kill even help the police with their investigations!

Quote:
 
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.


Thursday's and Friday's episodes made it quite explicit that Charlie's visits to Dot were becoming too few and far between. His association with Dot, in his mind, is finished. She's served her purpose. It's Dot constantly bothering him to visit on the smallest pretext that has him keeping up appearances.It also gives him an opportunity to keep an eye from a distance on this murder investigation. He's more keen to hang around Dot now that he knows that she's friends with the Cokers and Les Coker is blackmailing him.

Quote:
 
It's a nice theory, but Charlie's actions since the funeral and Lucy's death have created too many plot holes for me.


Not at all. The police have only established that Lucy wasn't killed where her body was found. They now have to investigate via another route and round up suspects - people who've had associations or connections with her, because it's quite evident that she knew the person who killed her. At the moment, nothing ties cocaine, Charlie or Ronnie to Lucy's death. But it will, in a twist of fate.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mrs Peel
Member Avatar

david
10 May 2014, 17:08
Jake described the taxi driver who drove him and Lucy back to the square as tall, dark with a woman's name tattooed on his neck. Tattoo on the neck - I immediately thought Nick Cotton. Nick was fairly tall, dark hair with a tattoo on his neck. The tattoo seemed to change and move between his various appearances. At one stage it appeared to be a spider's web, but later it looked different and seemed to be further back. Does anyone know if he had anything written on it?

Could be a red herring of course!
He said the tattoo was on the back of the neck of the taxi driver. Nick's tattoo was on the side of his neck. But consider this: Charlie Cotton either wears that weird scarf around his neck or high-necked shirts.

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mrs Peel
Member Avatar

At the moment, Jake remembers that when he went to the cafe on the Common, he found Lucy there. He was drunk, and remembers her binning him off in a taxi, unlicenced and driven by a man with a tattoo on the back of his neck.

At the moment, that's all he remembers. But was Lucy going to the cafe on the Common to meet whom she thought was a client or was she meeting someone else? What if that person or persons binned Jake off in a car driven by one of the people, whilst the other took Lucy to another place, where she was killed?

My guess is that Jake will suddenly remember too much of what happened that night - in particular, who the people were who were with Lucy, and that will seal his fate.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Jade
Member Avatar

So someone hit her on the head not realising they killed her and left the scene. Someone else turns up happens to find Lucy's dead body and moves it (all in the space of one night?). The more I think about this the more contrived and stupid it sounds. If that is the case it is a huge turn off for me. What happened to the we are going down the realistic route? And there will be a good reason for the murder? As this sounds like sensationalist crap which DTC was guilty of last time he was at EE.

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
 
Charper
Member Avatar

WalfordE20
10 May 2014, 18:13
david
10 May 2014, 17:39
I think there may be some confusion between characters and actors here. It has been said that the actors don't know if it was their character who killed Lucy. As far as I know. nothing has been said to indicate that character who killed Lucy doesn't know that they did it, or that it was only manslaughter. That the body was moved from the place that she died seems to suggest that it is probably murder.
From the original statement:

'No one knows exactly what happened to Lucy on the night she died, except very few people - even the person responsible for her death'
This quote confuses me, as it sounds to me like... No one knows, except, very few people, so there are a few people who do know?

I must be reading it wrong cause I can't make sense of that quote.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Cupcake
Member Avatar

I think it is trying to say that no one person knows the whole of what happened the night Lucy died. Obviously some people will know some things, like whoever moved her body, but no one knows the full story.
TBF it is going to be contrived in some way - the story has to last for a long time. Plus the story is being told backwards in that we have seen the result and now we will learn what led up to it. Therefore, there is going to be lots of opportunity for the show to add elements to the story that we have no idea about. I think it is a very clever idea and I hope they can pull it off.
One thing I am hoping for though is that the story moves back and forth from the front burner to the back burner because I don't want it to be the focus of every episode. It's too long of a time. These kinds of stories work well in a series like Broadchurch because they only have 6 episodes.
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