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 (367,929 Views)
WalfordE20
Member Avatar

MrJames
20 Apr 2014, 17:03
The text was obviously someone that she was in a position of trust as she looked more than willing to go. But I don't necessarily think that person is the killer.
I don't know, she spent a minute or two looking at the text as if weighing her options.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Walford East
Member Avatar
Revenge Is A Dish Best Served Cold
Mrs Peel
20 Apr 2014, 17:01
Jake is a total red herring. He'll be gone by the summer and won't figure.
That's why it makes perfect sense for Jake to have given Lucy the coke. He was living under Ian's roof. Ian will blame Jake for bringing that into his house.

The Coke is a side issue to make Jake a suspect and set up his exit from the show.
Edited by Walford East, 20 Apr 2014, 17:12.
Posted Image
Excellence is taught, knowledge is power, Forgiveness sets you free
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
WalfordE20
Member Avatar

Walford East
20 Apr 2014, 17:09
Mrs Peel
20 Apr 2014, 17:01
Jake is a total red herring. He'll be gone by the summer and won't figure.
That's why it makes perfect sense for Jake to have given Lucy the coke. He is living under Ian's roof. Ian will blame Jake for bringing that into his house.

The Coke is a side issue to make Jake a suspect and set up his exit from the show.
He lives with Aleks now, but I'd completely forgotten Jake stayed with the Beales. I definitely think he's involved with the drugs.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mrs Peel
Member Avatar

NickM
20 Apr 2014, 16:01
I really don't think that there is any point in people looking into when contracts of actors expires, because when the killer was thought up the producers wouldn't have taken the contracts into consideration. I know they probably had the killer decided a long time ago or planned this way in advance, but we don't even know if the killer will be revealed to the other characters or just to the audience, we don't know if they are going to leave after, there are lots of things that could have happen.
This is Ian Beale's daughter. David Wick's niece. Bianca's cousin. Pete's and Kathy's granddaughter and Lou's great-grandchild. Compared to Archie Mitchell, who was an incidental and retconned character, Lucy is Walford royalty. She may not have been likeable, but there is no way TPTB would reveal the killer's identity to the audience and not to the characters in the show. The reveal is scheduled to come on the 30th anniversary, which means this storyline is going to be done and dusted.

There is no way Ian Beale would countenance the killer of one of his children remaining at liberty on the Square. EVEN if it were his own son. EVEN if this were a case of manslaughter, it's still a Crown Prosecution case. If Peter proved to be the killer, Ian could beg, plead and cry until the cows come home, but the case would still be prosecuted because it's a crime against the State or the Crown.

Everyone will know who killed Lucy in 2015, and her killer will leave Walford -either handcuffed and with the police or in a box. DTC is nothing if not thorough. He would have known from the get-go whose contract ended when and whether the actor was interested in renewal, because her killer will be an established character, or else there is no real impact, and Walford won't have changed forever.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Walford East
Member Avatar
Revenge Is A Dish Best Served Cold
WalfordE20
20 Apr 2014, 17:11
Walford East
20 Apr 2014, 17:09

Quoting limited to 2 levels deep
He lives with Aleks now, but I'd completely forgotten Jake stayed with the Beales. I definitely think he's involved with the drugs.
Yeah I should have said was living under Ian's roof.

I agree. Its obvious imho.
Posted Image
Excellence is taught, knowledge is power, Forgiveness sets you free
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
E20
Member Avatar

I'm certain that Masood will have a part to play. Why did he ignore a clearly emotional Lucy? Why didn't he think to tell Jane? I know he said that Ian's family was no longer her responsibility, but, I can't see him just turning a blind-eye.
Posted Image
Thanks to NickM for making my signature. :)
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Leon
Member Avatar

What about Masood? When Lucy dropped her stuff outside on Friday's episode we saw him staring at her. Is it possible that he has developed an obsession with Jane and wanted to get rid of Lucy in order to have Jane to himself?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
E20
Member Avatar

I'm going to watch Friday's episode again, later. I'm sure there'll be some clues in there, no matter how subtle. I mean, did Aleks even have any lines in the episode? Or did he just stare at the lads as they discussed Lucy?
Posted Image
Thanks to NickM for making my signature. :)
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Fehnder
Member Avatar

As for Ronnie. Ronnie wouldn't be able to live with killing a young girl. She broke ever so quick with Carl's mum (is she gone for good?)

I think Ronnies story will tie in as will many others. Wasn't it said that people stories are going to be intertwined with each other? She will be involved in an indirect way, but I don't.think she would kill Lucy.

Even unintentionally, Ronnie has always shown great restraint in terms of using.violence in the past. she only used it when extremely.threatened, why would she feel threatened by Lucy?

Ronnie may be invoked with any drugs/Jake etc. But there are much more.plausible theories in terms of her killing Jake or aleks, in the same vein as her killing of Carl, for.control.

Plus we all know how.vulnerable Ronnie gets over a young blonde girl.

I just can't see all this effort for Ronnie to be responsible. Id have thought the point is the person responsible is unaware of what they've done, someone without intention to kill. Someone who would have an impact.

I don't think Ronnie would achieve this. I'm hoping that the.hint of the phrase "rooted in truth" means it will be a genuine person, someone genuinely remorseful when they learn the truth. Someone who has more.ties with Lucy and her.family.

I wonder if it will turn out she.did.see peter on the.night she died? Doesn't mean he killed her or was responsible in a physical sense but having a twin is always pretty complex in terms of feelings and emotions, and we know peters were.heightened. Id imagine he had a last conversation with her.
Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mrs Peel
Member Avatar

Walford East
20 Apr 2014, 17:09
Mrs Peel
20 Apr 2014, 17:01
Jake is a total red herring. He'll be gone by the summer and won't figure.
That's why it makes perfect sense for Jake to have given Lucy the coke. He was living under Ian's roof. Ian will blame Jake for bringing that into his house.

The Coke is a side issue to make Jake a suspect and set up his exit from the show.
Jake is involved periperally, but it isn't about drugs with Jake.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Jamie Fowler
Member Avatar

Aleks's appearance may have been deceptively pointless, he appeared in one brief scene and had no lines

Until rewatch, I had forgotten how late in the episode it was that Ronnie gave Charlie that nod and then he followed her outside of the Vic. Suspicious.
Posted Image
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Leon
Member Avatar

Surely it can't be Ronnie. Not only is Lucy young and blonde, resembling Danielle, but as she has shown with Carl, she can't watch a parent go through the grief of not knowing what's happened to their child as she knows what that's like herself. Would she really be able to watch Ian go to bits for ten months given how quickly she crumbled with Norma? And Carl was somebody who had what was coming to him, he wasn't anything like Lucy.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mrs Peel
Member Avatar

Fehnder
20 Apr 2014, 17:20
As for Ronnie. Ronnie wouldn't be able to live with killing a young girl. She broke ever so quick with Carl's mum (is she gone for good?)

I think Ronnies story will tie in as will many others. Wasn't it said that people stories are going to be intertwined with each other? She will be involved in an indirect way, but I don't.think she would kill Lucy.

Even unintentionally, Ronnie has always shown great restraint in terms of using.violence in the past. she only used it when extremely.threatened, why would she feel threatened by Lucy?

Ronnie may be invoked with any drugs/Jake etc. But there are much more.plausible theories in terms of her killing Jake or aleks, in the same vein as her killing of Carl, for.control.

Plus we all know how.vulnerable Ronnie gets over a young blonde girl.

I just can't see all this effort for Ronnie to be responsible. Id have thought the point is the person responsible is unaware of what they've done, someone without intention to kill. Someone who would have an impact.

I don't think Ronnie would achieve this. I'm hoping that the.hint of the phrase "rooted in truth" means it will be a genuine person, someone genuinely remorseful when they learn the truth. Someone who has more.ties with Lucy and her.family.

I wonder if it will turn out she.did.see peter on the.night she died? Doesn't mean he killed her or was responsible in a physical sense but having a twin is always pretty complex in terms of feelings and emotions, and we know peters were.heightened. Id imagine he had a last conversation with her.
Ronnie is 100 per cent psychopath now. Psychopaths obsess, they have superiority complexes, they have no empathy. If Lola were to turn around o Ronnie tomorrow - Lola, her latest obsession - and tell Ronnie to do one, Ronnie would let rip and beat the cack out of her, and walk away unaffected. Roxy has called the crap on her a number of times, but Roxy's thick and Lola isn't, and Roxy allows herself to be manipulated by Ronnie - another psychopath trait.

Ronnie would be able to kill Lucy in a New York minute and walk away.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Fehnder
Member Avatar

Mrs Peel
20 Apr 2014, 17:25
Fehnder
20 Apr 2014, 17:20
As for Ronnie. Ronnie wouldn't be able to live with killing a young girl. She broke ever so quick with Carl's mum (is she gone for good?)

I think Ronnies story will tie in as will many others. Wasn't it said that people stories are going to be intertwined with each other? She will be involved in an indirect way, but I don't.think she would kill Lucy.

Even unintentionally, Ronnie has always shown great restraint in terms of using.violence in the past. she only used it when extremely.threatened, why would she feel threatened by Lucy?

Ronnie may be invoked with any drugs/Jake etc. But there are much more.plausible theories in terms of her killing Jake or aleks, in the same vein as her killing of Carl, for.control.

Plus we all know how.vulnerable Ronnie gets over a young blonde girl.

I just can't see all this effort for Ronnie to be responsible. Id have thought the point is the person responsible is unaware of what they've done, someone without intention to kill. Someone who would have an impact.

I don't think Ronnie would achieve this. I'm hoping that the.hint of the phrase "rooted in truth" means it will be a genuine person, someone genuinely remorseful when they learn the truth. Someone who has more.ties with Lucy and her.family.

I wonder if it will turn out she.did.see peter on the.night she died? Doesn't mean he killed her or was responsible in a physical sense but having a twin is always pretty complex in terms of feelings and emotions, and we know peters were.heightened. Id imagine he had a last conversation with her.
Ronnie is 100 per cent psychopath now. Psychopaths obsess, they have superiority complexes, they have no empathy. If Lola were to turn around o Ronnie tomorrow - Lola, her latest obsession - and tell Ronnie to do one, Ronnie would let rip and beat the cack out of her, and walk away unaffected. Roxy has called the crap on her a number of times, but Roxy's thick and Lola isn't, and Roxy allows herself to be manipulated by Ronnie - another psychopath trait.

Ronnie would be able to kill Lucy in a New York minute and walk away.
Not sure if I agree as such, although id much rather see Ronnie snap and kill Lola or roxy.

I dont know too much about the psychopathic specifics, wouldn't there be some kind of similar MO though if someone turned to killing multiple people? Or is that an entirely different thing all together?

I still don't think Ronnie will be involved directly.

Is there any reason also to think the person responsible did it physically? As the word murder wasn't used in the press release perhaps it could tie in to someone perhaps leaving her in a vulnerable place.or position or something along those lines?
Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
E20
Member Avatar

We need to create ourselves an evidence room, tbh. :D

This is definitely the storyline that the show needed.
Posted Image
Thanks to NickM for making my signature. :)
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Dan
Member Avatar


Mrs Peel
20 Apr 2014, 17:01
Dan
20 Apr 2014, 15:46
It's a really good point that perhaps a serial killer might become more arrogant or careless as they go.

I think we can rule out any character who has appeared in the last three years like Terry, Aleks and Jake or a non-entity like Danny because they would have barely any impact at all.


Jake is a total red herring. He'll be gone by the summer and won't figure. Aleks is an isolated character, new to the area and with no ties to the Square. He's too easy a choice, and - as you say - there will be absolutely no impact. I do, however, think he may figure in discovering the identity of the killer or at least, what Ronnie's been up to. He's involved with Roxy now, and after initially backing off at Ronnie's demand, he now doesn't give a rat's arse and genuinely likes Roxy. I do think that Ronnie is Lucy's killer, because she's killed before, she has no empathy and no moral compass. EastEnders won't make the same mistake of having a killer get off scot-free, and before anyone mentions Janine, that was a case which should never have been brought to court based on the evidence presented. So Ronnie will pay for what she's done. That's why I think TPTB don't want to get into two separate killers running around the Square.

As for Terry, he's interesting as a dark horse. Years ago, Corrie had a big storyline about the rape of Toyah Battersby. There were all sorts of suspects, because she was attacked in the dark, from behind, beaten and raped. In the end, the culprit turned out to be the taxi driver who'd given her a ride almost to her doorstep. As someone pointed out, Terry Alderton said that it's possible Terry Spraggan has secrets. His wife left him. In fact, Terry referenced that Nikki "threw him out." Why? She also said that he fell in love easily with strange women. At first glance, his concern about Whitney did seem avuncular. What if, on a different layer, it wasn't? That's an interesting choice, especially since rumours are rife about Alderton not staying any length of time.

Quote:
 
I suppose the first mystery that needs to be solved is whether Lucy died on the common or elsewhere and if she did die elsewhere, was she moved or did she get there on her own power and collapse? If she did collapse, was she alone when she died?


This is what needs to be established. When it was first divulged that she was going to be killed, the initial storyline was similar to the disappearance of Suzy Lamplugh back in the 1980s, something DTC would have remembered well - a young estate agent, called to a viewing and is never seen again. This led a lot of us to believe she'd be found in one of the flats, now she's found on Walford Common, with no mention of any flat viewing. Where is Walford Common, and if she went there, why did she go? It's not the sort of place a young girl on her own would be at night. If she wasn't killed there, how did she get there?

Quote:
 
The spoilers when we first found about Lucy's death did not actually state she was murdered leading me to believe that it was manslaughter. They also stated that even the person responsible for Lucy's death (if she was murdered, why not just say the murderer?) didn't know exactly what happened to Lucy that night. This tallies with my theory of Second Impact Syndrome or delayed reaction a head injury. Lucy may well have received a concussion when she fell in Max's office and a second one before that had cleared up could have caused swelling on the brain which is fatal. Hence, I don't think it would be Ronnie if that is indeed the case.


It could very well be delayed reaction, but I really don't want to see EastEnders go that route again. Think about it - both Arthur and Pauline died that way. Arthur died as a result of being hit over the head in a prison riot, hours before he was released. Pauline died as a result of being struck in the head by Joe Macer in an argument. Audrey Trueman died that way as well, after accidentally hitting her head in the B and B. It's plausible for Ronnie to have killed Lucy and not known. Maybe she hit her, thought she was knocked out, shrugged her shoulders and walked away. I'm beginning to think she was killed on the Common, but why was she there?

Quote:
 
Whoever it is won't have sent Lucy the text as that would be too obvious. The first thing the police will do is try to build a picture of Lucy's final movements from the time she was seen on CCTV walking out of the Square until reaching the Common. This would mean that everything on her phone would be checked for clues. Incoming and outgoing phone calls in that time would be analysed, text messages as well as instant messaging/social networking apps she may have on her phone. Whoever sent the text will be known pretty quickly and I think they will be arrested but released without charge because they are indeed innocent. If it was them, the story would peak too early if they want the reveal to be next Feb.


This. Or, indeed, they could arrest and question the actual murderer and release him/her without charge, initially. This is going to be a long investigation.

Quote:
 
Upon the death being "suspicious", namely that it wasn't of natural causes, a natural accident or suicide, the police would investigate whether Lucy was mugged or raped before she was killed as Mrs Peel said. I would also think that there would be toxicology report particularly when discovered that Lucy was taking cocaine and whether she was under the influence of anything at the time of her death.


A young woman found dead on a Common is, indeed, suspicious. The police would start with the obvious:- Is this a random mugging. The contents of her bag would be checked to see if money and/or credit or bank cards were missing. There would be a post-mortem examination, first of all, to see if she were raped. Here's the first clue - there might be traces of semen left from her night of passion in the restaurant. Ian knows with whom she spent the night -Bang! There's your first suspect brought in for questioning: Lee Carter. A toxicology report would also be taken, as a matter of course. Traces of drug residue stays in your bloodstream for up to a month (which is why athletes don't want blood tests enforced as a means of detecting drug cheats); if traces of cocaine were to be found, they'd go heavy on wanting to find her dealer or the person from whom she bought this stuff.

Quote:
 
Realistically, they would also keep Lucy's body as evidence but the show would want to the funeral soon while interest is still at its peak.


They only recently filmed the funeral scenes, but yes, in the real world, the authorities wouldn't release her body for burial until they'd built a case of some sort or a profile of her potential killer.
Janine killing Michael was indeed self-defence. Also, Alice acted in defence of Janine's life and neither of them tried or had the opportunity to cover up Michael's death so neither should have gone to court on that.

The show have had a lot of murder stories in recent times. I think we will soon see Ben back (possibly with a new head) and he killed Heather. There was Carl and Lucy also (not counting Michael) and Stacey is a murderer who will not be sentenced for Archie's murder as her time in prison is simply to facilitate Lacey filming the other show she is in so I don't think it will be particularly bother DTC is there is more than one killer around.

Aleks is a lone wolf who doesn't play by other people's rules. He is dangerous to Ronnie and may rebel against her. He will probably be killed by her after finding out what she has planned with Charlie. I think Ronnie might be involved in whatever scam Nick is trying to pull on Dot. It's possible that Lucy is on to her about something and was going to reveal it but there is something in me that just doesn't think it's Ronnie although I do agree that if it is, it could be manslaughter as opposed to murder.

I don't often watch Corrie but I do remember the Toyah storyline, that was done by a bloke she trusted wasn't it? I seem to recall an episode where he was the first man she'd allowed around her since it happened and she knew it was him by his shoes as he was wearing the same ones on the night of the rape. Or am I thinking of a totally different story?

As you say, Terry is an interesting dark horse and may have a dark side but I think it will be someone who was close to Lucy and he simply wasn't.

There are a few theories that the police would have to go through and I suppose it's pick your favourite out of these three:

Lucy was killed elsewhere, deliberately, and her body was dumped on the Common by her killer or killers.

She went to meet someone on the Common and was killed where she fell. As you say though, it's not the sort of place she'd go on her own at night or to meet anyone so she would have had to have been lured there by someone she trusted. I could only see her trusting Ian (who it won't be), Peter and Lauren enough to go with them there.

She is the victim of manslaughter, was attacked elsewhere and stumbled onto the Common due to extreme disorientation as she had a head injury. This is my personal theory.

I think Max text her in order to try and charm her back under his control. He had form in doing this during his affair with Stacey when he feared that she would reveal all to Tanya and he also has form in taking his mistresses to secret places, he did so with Stacey and Tanya when he was cheating on Vanessa and Tanya on Greg. Lauren, who was suspicious about her behaviour all day, was watching her leaving the Square and followed her to find out what she was doing. She saw Max do his thing with Lucy and put two and two together. Lucy rejected Max, Max stormed off leaving Lucy alone and fine and Lauren confronts her. The confrontation became physical and Lucy takes a whack on the head in the struggle. Lucy storms off seemingly fine and Lauren perhaps even feels guilty. Lucy gets disorientated and ends up on the Common where she collapses. Max is arrested due to the text, it comes out about the affair but he is released without charge due to a lack of evidence. Ian begins a vendetta against him thinking him guilty. It comes out next Feb that Lauren is responsible and Max attempts to take the blame for her but this fails. Lauren is jailed for manslaughter.

The only flaw in that is why Max would be released without charge if he indeed went to meet her. But clever writing could get them out of it.

Second Impact Syndrome, while similar to delayed reaction, could be the case too. It has been done before though as you say. I think Audrey was hit by a falling piece of wood when those builders were working on the Vic but yeah, similar thing.

I guess it remains to be seen if there was blood at the scene or any evidence of a struggle anywhere. If someone did attack Lucy there, I couldn't see her going down without a fight and her clothes didn't seem torn or skewed nor was her hair out of its bun. This might suggest to the police that she was killed elsewhere.

Interesting point about Lee but it would quickly be established by several people that Lee and Lucy had consensual sex the night before. But yes, they would definitely check for any possibility of rape.

Edited by Dan, 20 Apr 2014, 17:51.
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
 
Alidee
Member Avatar

I think Bianca may have killed Lucy, I mean look at way she reacted to Terry the other week when she caught him sat on the bed with Whitney, I know it would be Lazy writing to co inside it with Bianca's departure, but she has got a history of violence in the past, And she has the guilt on what Tony did which tends to make her over protective towards Whitney, Maybe Whitney went home in an emotional state and Bianca decided to sort Lucy out.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
StJimmy
Member Avatar

I'm a bit bummed out that they chose to kill Lucy, she's one if the hottest on the square
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Winters
Member Avatar

But how could it be Ronnie if it's supposed to be manslaughter? Ronnie just did a deliberate murder. Manslaughter is fairly innocent in comparison and nothing like a psychopathic serial killer.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Swirly
Member Avatar

I would definitely want it to be another well established character who is close to her if it is murder. A big character such as Lucy being murdered in my opinion needs to be done by another big character to make the most impact.

A big part of me thinks it isn't as simple as someone killing her whether it's accidental or not. The position she ended up in to me didn't seem like an instant death to me either.

Edited by Swirly, 20 Apr 2014, 19:27.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Join the millions that use us for their forum communities. Create your own forum today.
Learn More · Register Now
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · EastEnders Current & Future · Next Topic »
Add Reply