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 (367,894 Views)
Ross
Member Avatar
I'm in the kitchen eating a biscuit
Mrs Peel
25 Jul 2014, 17:28
Ross
25 Jul 2014, 15:48

Quoting limited to 2 levels deep
And your point?

It has been established that Lucy wasn't killed on the Common, and the police have mentioned on two occasions to the Beales, that forensic evidence indicated her body had been moved there after she'd been killed. In other words, she was dumped and her purse and phone taken in order to make it look as though this was a mugging gone wrong.

There is no way Cindy could have moved Lucy's body to the Common, but whoever did would certainly be conscious that they were moving a dead body and not someone who was merely unconscious. So whoever did move her is an accomplice after the fact and can be prosecuted as a collaborator in the murder.

For anyone thinking that it's easy to move something like a corpse, even in the dead of night in an area as active 24/7 as East London is, it's not. Whoever moved her would most likely have had to have used a vehicle - otherwise carrying an adult like that is surely going to cause comment and get caught on CCTV - and then carried her to the remote place on the Common.

So who was Cindy's accomplice? TJ? Liam? Or did some stranger just come along and decide to move a dead body? Whoever moved Lucy's body was either the killer himself or someone helping the killer, herself.

Of course, if Cindy killed Lucy, someone else would have had to have moved her body, and either of those two schoolboys would have easily been spotted by the plethora of CCTV cameras in abundance all over the place, carrying/supporting/dragging her body through Walford.
"And your point"? ;)

I said "what's not to say somebody else moved her body?". Meaning, Cindy killed Lucy, and somebody stumbled across the body and (for some reason) moved it. Perhaps Jake moved the body? He could have been drunk; found the body; in his state, believed that he would be held responsible; and moved her body.

I'm not sure how the purse and phone fit into this really. But maybe more than one person stumbled across her body that night? It happened to Archie, so it can happen to Lucy.

BIB - And you can prove that how? :blink: Lucy being killed and her body being moved could have been two entirely different events that involved two completely different people. No "accomplices". But, obviously, you've been watching EastEnders for far longer than I have so... what do I know, eh! :lol: [edit_reason]Sentence removed[/edit_reason]
Edited by Ennui, 26 Jul 2014, 22:41.
Massive thanks to NickM for this wonderful signature! :)

Posted Image
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Desdemona
Member Avatar

The Other Slater Cousin
25 Jul 2014, 18:51
Out of interest, what outcome would you all want? In terms of who killed her and who was involved etc?

I would prefer a realistic plot rather than a far-fetched sensational story to wow the viewer.
Ideally, I'd like the killer to have an emotional or psychological motif/dramatic background story which means that the person who committed the crime is likely to be a relative or possibly a close friend/lover (less likely since Lucy didn't form long-lasting relationships)
In any case, I'll be very disappointed if the culprit is a relative outsider who is easily dismissed as a maniac or if the murder turns out to be a random accident that went terribly wrong
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
*Betty*
Member Avatar


Or the person who moved the body was with Lucy when she died. Lucy could have been struck earlier, and died later like her auntie Pauline. She could have been with someone different who moved her body unaware why she collapsed.
Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Walford East
Member Avatar
Revenge Is A Dish Best Served Cold
Just because Lucy had a head injury doesn't mean she had to have bled out. Like Betty says Pauline hit her head and there was no blood. Same with Audrey Trueman. She was hit by with a brick from one of Sharon's workmen. She didn't bleed but dropped down dead one episode later.

There was certainly no sign of blood on Lucy's hair when we saw her body.

I still say the blood in the flat came from a nose bleed. Cocaine's biggest side effect is nose bleeds. She will have been in that flat and suffered one hence the blood being there. I think its a total red herring and I have a feeling it won't be answered until they do the flashback episode which I'm certain is on the cards because Jamie Lomas hinted very strongly 3 times now we will be seeing Jake again.

I also still don't believe any of these Ronnie theories. Certainly not in light of todays spoilers about Yvonne
Spoiler: click to toggle
What ever is going on there its nothing to do with Lucy but more about Dot/Charlie/Yvonne and now Ronnie because she is having Charlie's baby. None of its linked to Lucy.
Edited by Walford East, 26 Jul 2014, 14:50.
Posted Image
Excellence is taught, knowledge is power, Forgiveness sets you free
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mr Branning
Member Avatar

I've been away and have only loosely caught up on the developments of the past month, so apologies if this has already been speculated upon but, with regards to the phone and purse, it strikes me that the person burying them has to be someone who is desperate, stupid and a little bit twisted. Firstly, they've kept the items as a keepsake for all this time which suggests, if they did kill Lucy, it's not something they regret or feel particularly guilty about. If they had lashed out and then felt terrible, why not get rid of the most incriminating items months ago?

Secondly, burying the items in the allotment just minutes away from the Square? This is a dumb move. That's why I don't think it could be Ronnie or Charlie doing the burying. Those two are smart and would know to completely destroy those two items, either by dumping them in a canal or burning them. Why bury them in a crude hole just moments away from where the police are sniffing round? This suggests to me that the person burying them is naive, scared and in a panic after hearing about the altercation in the pub, desperately tried to get rid of the stuff as quickly as possible.

It's almost a contradictory set of traits - a killer who is twisted enough to have keepsakes of their victim but is also stupid and naive enough to hide those keepsakes so close to the crime scene. It is, however, almost the exact behaviour we saw from Ben Mitchell two years ago, which is why I now think the killer is someone young. Young enough to have that twisted imagination/pride to keep Lucy's belongings, but inexperienced and silly enough to then make such a textbook error. Cindy? Abi? Peter? Lola? I'm not sure, but I think the tragedy of this piece may well be that one young person has ended the life of another.
Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
*Betty*
Member Avatar


Firstly, we don't know the person burying the phone and person was her killer. This could be someone who came across the body, or like I said above was with Lucy when she actually died and moved her body to the common.

I've also said it already but instead of being a silly inexperienced move to bury the purse and phone in the allotment, it could have been a ploy to set Billy up. We were reminded by Lola in that episode that Billy has a plot at the allotment, he took Janet down there where Patrick also has one. And then after Billy was accused in the Vic by Ian, who mentioned the phone and purse, we then saw it being buried at the allotment. So it could be part of a plan to set up Billy. Or like you said, could be someone silly, not really thinking about it.
Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mr Branning
Member Avatar

The ploy to set Billy up is a good idea, but surely the person would want to get the wheels in motion sooner rather than later by either tipping the police off or doing some digging/encouraging some digging to be done at the allotments. Also, if this were the case, the phone and purse would have to have something a bit more substantive on them, such as Billy's fingerprints. On top of this, why now? Presumably the person did not know about Billy's involvement so were they just planning on sitting on the phone/purse until they were conveniently able to set someone up.

Whether it was the killer or not who buried them, those two items are paramount to the investigation and whoever had hold of them is going to be in a hell of a lot trouble, so why only get rid of them now?
Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
*Betty*
Member Avatar


Fear? Forgot about them? Control?

I'm not sure. It depends on the story outcome really and who it was.
Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
soetmo
Member Avatar

I think the blood in the flat is from where she fell over and bashed her head in the car lot.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
JimRRR
Default Avatar

CivvyStreet
24 Jul 2014, 22:12
JimRRR
24 Jul 2014, 22:00
I am just not interested in this whodunit....There's more to "EE" at the moment than who killed Lucy

Yes, the whodunit is not even the most interesting part of the Lucy storyline - which is the constant spilling of new secrets such as Rainie etc.
I agree....Why the wait...when all these secrets are coming out?

I mean, it's not like Lucy was Pauline, Ethel, Dot, Grant, Lisa, etc
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Daniel68
Member Avatar

Have people seen the article online that reckons the person who buried the phone was Jay? Apparently you can see him in the reflection. I don't think it will be him, but as a theory, what if he was burying it for Phil.

I can just see the reveal now, after Ben comes back Jay being shoved out of Phil's attention, Jay getting jealous and accusing Phil of forgetting him.

'I've done a lot for you Phil and you're forgetting me!'
'Done a lot? What, fixing a few cars for me, yeah that's great that is'
'No, burying Lucy's stuff for ya.'
DUFF DUFF
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mrs Peel
Member Avatar

Ross
26 Jul 2014, 12:13
"And your point"? ;)

Perhaps Jake moved the body? He could have been drunk; found the body; in his state, believed that he would be held responsible; and moved her body.

Has anyone ever defined the level of wit sarcasm holds?

Quote:
 
I said "what's not to say somebody else moved her body?". Meaning, Cindy killed Lucy, and somebody stumbled across the body and (for some reason) moved it.


What reason? Dead bodies aren't moved like pieces of rubbish because they're unsightly. "Ooh, look, there's Lucy Beale lying dead. Best get her moved, littering up the pavement like that."

Lucy wasn't killed out in the open. There's reason to believe she was killed within some building, premises, house or flat. If that's the case, then an accomplice certainly would have moved her. Corpses aren't common things seen in streets or in people's flats. They're uncommon enough for whoever finds something unexpected like that. Whoever moves a dead body for concealment does so for a purpose, usually illegal. As for Jake, when he saw Lucy, she was alive. He was drunk, she took him back to the Square. He was so drunk when he got out of the taxi, he fell to the pavement, and the driver left Lucy there - for what reason, we'll never know, because Peter scared him away. But Jake got back into the flat, and Lucy wasn't killed there.

Quote:
 
I'm not sure how the purse and phone fit into this really. But maybe more than one person stumbled across her body that night?


The purse and the phone fit quite neatly. Initially, the police thought Lucy had been mugged randomly. Her bag was with her, minus her purse and her phone. When they established that she didn't die on the Common, due to lack of blood and other forensic evidence, the police ascertained that she'd been killed elsewhere, and whoever dumped her body on the Common, took her phone and her purse to make it appear as though she'd been mugged.

That's how those items fit into the scheme of things. Whoever killed her and whoever aided that person, if there were two people involved, wanted to make her death look random. The police are right to want to trace her possessions. Whoever has them is the killer or associated with the killer.

Quote:
 
It happened to Archie, so it can happen to Lucy.


What? Before Archie Mitchell died, there were several people who had a bone to pick with him who could have killed him? Every one of those people saw Archie before he died, bar the person who killed him (Stacey), a drunken Phil, who found the body, told no one and did nothing, and Ronnie, who was actually in a state of shock. In fact, it was Roxy who alerted the police. Plus, Archie was killed inside a building. He was lying in a pool of blood - again, a head injury bleeds profusely. Archie was a jaded man with whom a lot of people had issues.

Lucy was a young girl, just starting out in a new business. Even if she were killed at Roxy's party, no one is so callous as to shrug off seeing a young person bleeding profusely or dumped dead on a stretch of common ground. Lucy was very different from Archie.

Quote:
 
BIB - And you can prove that how? :blink: Lucy being killed and her body being moved could have been two entirely different events that involved two completely different people. No "accomplices".


It's not rocket science. No matter where she was killed, if someone totally unrelated to the incident finds her body and then removes it, he or she becomes part of the crime. Lucy was killed in one place and her body was removed because finding the killer(s) didn't want to get caught. More than likely she was either killed accidentally or in the heat of the moment. The only way for the killer(s) to avoid detection was to remove the body to another place and make it look like a random mugging. Unless Lucy's killer was a man, with the means to remove a corpse from the place of death to a remote part of a common in a busy part of London without being seen, then yes, there had to be an accomplice OR the killer had to have access to some sort of private transport.

Quote:
 
But, obviously, you've been watching EastEnders for far longer than I have so... what do I know, eh! :lol:


You said it. I didn't.
[edit_reason]Sentence removed[/edit_reason]
Edited by Mrs Peel, 27 Jul 2014, 01:29.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mrs Peel
Member Avatar

Mr Branning
26 Jul 2014, 14:48
I've been away and have only loosely caught up on the developments of the past month, so apologies if this has already been speculated upon but, with regards to the phone and purse, it strikes me that the person burying them has to be someone who is desperate, stupid and a little bit twisted. Firstly, they've kept the items as a keepsake for all this time which suggests, if they did kill Lucy, it's not something they regret or feel particularly guilty about. If they had lashed out and then felt terrible, why not get rid of the most incriminating items months ago?

Secondly, burying the items in the allotment just minutes away from the Square? This is a dumb move. That's why I don't think it could be Ronnie or Charlie doing the burying. Those two are smart and would know to completely destroy those two items, either by dumping them in a canal or burning them. Why bury them in a crude hole just moments away from where the police are sniffing round? This suggests to me that the person burying them is naive, scared and in a panic after hearing about the altercation in the pub, desperately tried to get rid of the stuff as quickly as possible.

It's almost a contradictory set of traits - a killer who is twisted enough to have keepsakes of their victim but is also stupid and naive enough to hide those keepsakes so close to the crime scene. It is, however, almost the exact behaviour we saw from Ben Mitchell two years ago, which is why I now think the killer is someone young. Young enough to have that twisted imagination/pride to keep Lucy's belongings, but inexperienced and silly enough to then make such a textbook error. Cindy? Abi? Peter? Lola? I'm not sure, but I think the tragedy of this piece may well be that one young person has ended the life of another.
Ronnie left Carl's bloodied phone in a bag which she left in the Mitchell kitchen. She also left an illegal gun there. Psychopaths who kill often keep mementos of their victims, and they hide them in the most ridiculous places. Ben Mitchell kept the picture frame with which he'd killed Heather under his bed for months.

Ronnie leaves a trail, except she leaves it with other people who might take up the slack. Even when the police came to the Mitchell door in the wake of Ronnie's return, didn't Phil hide the phone in Roxy's coat pocket? It would be well within Ronnie's remit to leave those items with Charlie, who buried them.

As for Lucy's head wound, the police were quite adamant that she had bled out, indicating that she'd received an open trauma to her head, unlike Pauline. Pauline was hit with a blunt instrument - a flat frying pan. Lucy was hit with something that had an edge to it - like a gun, maybe.
Edited by Mrs Peel, 27 Jul 2014, 01:23.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
WalfordE20
Member Avatar

I've been giving Good Friday some more thought and I think Mrs Peel could really be onto something regarding Ronnie and Lucy. In the aftermath of her death, Lauren and the other youngsters were under the impression she was on her way to the party. What would make her death particularly tragic is if she did show up, then was killed out of sight with half of Walford in the next room. If Ronnie's not involved then my other guess at the moment is Peter. Dom seems insistent that the reveal won't be sensational, but at the moment I'm struggling to understand how a) he might not know, or b) if he knows how he's managing to cover it up.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Josh
Default Avatar

Where I'm at now is obviously Stacey is eliminated for definite, and I think Jake also is too. The likes of Dot, Mo, Cora and Patrick are eliminated too for obvious reasons.
It's clear Ronnie isn't involved, and I think after some suspicion we can eliminate Whitney and Billy too. Nick and Ben's returns are there to add possibilities but I would say Ben definitely has nothing to do with it. Nick might have links to Lucy's drug use if they go down the Charlie and Carl drug/dealing use path.

Denise has always, and still is, my number one suspect. I'd preference it being somewhat of an accident after a confrontation on Denise's way home from Oxford. Post-reveal I'd personally like to see Denise serve some time in prison but not lose her from the show.
Other possibilities I guess are Peter, Jane, Abi, Lola, Dean and Cindy.
Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
david
Default Avatar

Josh
29 Jul 2014, 07:07
Denise has always, and still is, my number one suspect. I'd preference it being somewhat of an accident after a confrontation on Denise's way home from Oxford. Post-reveal I'd personally like to see Denise serve some time in prison but not lose her from the show.
Denise returned from Oxford and went straight to bed. Lucy was still in Bridge Street then, before she got the message to go to Walford Common Flats. Of course it's possible that Denise got up again, but unlikely.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mr Branning
Member Avatar

I can't really see it being Denise. Walford doesn't have many morally sound residents but she is one of them. Lucy's death has trapped her in the Beale household which was her worst possible situation, so I can't imagine she would have deliberately killed Ian's daughter (plus she seemed genuinely shocked the next day). If the timings add up, an accidental killing is possible but Denise has seen at very close proximity what this has done to Ian and she's a mother to two daughters herself. I do feel that, had she had any contact with Lucy on the night of her death, she would have told Ian.

Plus, I don't see a motive. Denise was treated horribly by Ian and sanctimonious Jane, but she seemed to get on perfectly fine with the kids.
Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Professor Plum
Default Avatar

Mr Branning
29 Jul 2014, 22:22
Lucy's death has trapped her in the Beale household which was her worst possible situation,
LOL! You mean, she could be already serving her prison sentence :D

I don't think its Denise either. Her conscience would have gotten the better of her by now, and we would know. Look how guilty Lucas acted when he was in the middle of his murderous spree.
Just livin' in perfect New Zealand!
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Professor Plum
Default Avatar

Josh
29 Jul 2014, 07:07
Where I'm at now is obviously Stacey is eliminated for definite, and I think Jake also is too. The likes of Dot, Mo, Cora and Patrick are eliminated too for obvious reasons.
It's clear Ronnie isn't involved, and I think after some suspicion we can eliminate Whitney and Billy too. Nick and Ben's returns are there to add possibilities but I would say Ben definitely has nothing to do with it. Nick might have links to Lucy's drug use if they go down the Charlie and Carl drug/dealing use path.

Denise has always, and still is, my number one suspect. I'd preference it being somewhat of an accident after a confrontation on Denise's way home from Oxford. Post-reveal I'd personally like to see Denise serve some time in prison but not lose her from the show.
Other possibilities I guess are Peter, Jane, Abi, Lola, Dean and Cindy.
I thought DTC said some time back it wasn't Stacey (about the time of her return), but I agree with the rest of your first line

forgive my next question, as I am about 3 weeks behind, but has Ronnie actually been cleared? She is still very much in my radar.
I also find it a bit odd that Phil hasn't formed a manhunt to track Jay down.
Just livin' in perfect New Zealand!
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
JimRRR
Default Avatar

Who killed Lucy?
Doesn't interest me in the least.
I'm totally enjoying Sharon's story, the one with Patrick, the latest crisis at the Butcher's and the Carter's and looking forward to Kat's upcoming storyline.
Lucy....no interest....and I like whodunnit's
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
ZetaBoards gives you all the tools to create a successful discussion community.
Learn More · Register for Free
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · EastEnders Current & Future · Next Topic »
Add Reply