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 (367,881 Views)
Kim
Default Avatar

WalfordE20
26 Aug 2014, 21:52
I'm still sticking by my theory that Peter's the killer, but somehow doesn't know. I can't imagine him being this determined to find the culprit if he knew he was guilty. There's the possibility that he wants to be caught rather than simply own up, but I feel that would be out of character. After all, nothing could be more upsetting than spending ten months chasing his sister's killer only to find he's been looking at him in the mirror every day since she died.

That scene at the allotment... intriguing. When did Patrick have his stroke? Was it before or after the phone was buried? If Lucy's belongings were buried before Peter took over the allotment I think he can be ruled out of that little strand.

The writers continue to tease us with clues. I love it.
I think the phone and purse were buried a couple of days before Patrick's stroke.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
MrJames
Member Avatar

Also, we forget what the revelation of Ian's secret means for the murder investigation. Whole new avenues have been opened up now, story-wise.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
WalfordE20
Member Avatar

I've just Googled the dates and Patrick's stroke was about a week after Ian confronted Billy and the phone was buried. By the time Peter took control of the allotment Lucy's belongings had already been hidden, though I'm sure tonight's throwaway scene had some significance. Maybe it was just ironic that he went to brood just yards away from the potential truth.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mrs Peel
Member Avatar

But everyone goes to the allotments to brood - Stan and Dean had a heart-to-heart there, just after Patrick's stroke. That was the first place Jean went. Billy also has an allotment there. Peter is high up on my list of suspects, just after the collective duo of Ronnie and Charlie. The fact that he is itching to leave Walford is also significant.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
WalfordE20
Member Avatar

Just for the sake of being hypothetical, is there any realistic way someone could be unaware they're the killer? Let's say, for example, that someone argues with Lucy and she comes to hit her head, either by accident or through force. She leaves that person's company seemingly fine, then collapses later and is moved by someone else in a panic. Is it plausible that person would still not know they're responsible? Similarly, has Max ever suspected that Lucy's fall in the office contributed to her death? And let's not forget Cora saw him and Abi cleaning up the car lot.

I'm convinced it's Peter at the moment but I don't believe he knows. If not him, then Ronnie. Ronnie or Peter. I'm just not sure how they killed Lucy. My other guesses, though less solid, are Nick, Cindy and Masood.


Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Dave Sullivan
Default Avatar

I don't think Nick had anything to do with Lucy dying, yes he's murdered twice before, Reg Cox and Eddie Royle and tried to kill Dot twice too so that's against him. But he didn't set out to kill Reg or Eddie and ultimately couldn't kill his own mother. He set out to kill Mark and as a result he directly caused the death of his own son so he's being where the Beales are now so Nick, Max, Alfie, Les and Ian all have something in common as fathers who lost children.

If Charlie and/or Ronnie are Lucy's killer Nick in the greatest irony in Enders history could be the one to end their time on Albert Square by bringing them down and potentially die redeemed and a hero.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mrs Peel
Member Avatar

WalfordE20
27 Aug 2014, 00:47
Just for the sake of being hypothetical, is there any realistic way someone could be unaware they're the killer? Let's say, for example, that someone argues with Lucy and she comes to hit her head, either by accident or through force. She leaves that person's company seemingly fine, then collapses later and is moved by someone else in a panic. Is it plausible that person would still not know they're responsible? Similarly, has Max ever suspected that Lucy's fall in the office contributed to her death? And let's not forget Cora saw him and Abi cleaning up the car lot.

I'm convinced it's Peter at the moment but I don't believe he knows. If not him, then Ronnie. Ronnie or Peter. I'm just not sure how they killed Lucy. My other guesses, though less solid, are Nick, Cindy and Masood.


That would be plausible, but that's working on the assumption that the blow on the head didn't break Lucy's skin and, instead, bled inside her skull. The police have made it obvious that they didn't think she was killed on the Common because of the lack of blood at the site, which leads one to surmise that the wound broke the skin on her skull and bled out. The skull is only covered by a thin sheath of skin, which is very veinous, meaning that all you have to do is bump your head and break skin and you bleed like a stuck pig.

If Lucy's injury were of the nature of Audrey Trueman's or Pauline's, then it's possible someone might not have realised they'd killed her, but we've been led to believe that there was blood.

My suspects are still Ronnie/Charlie, followed closely by Peter.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Josh
Default Avatar

WalfordE20
27 Aug 2014, 00:47
Just for the sake of being hypothetical, is there any realistic way someone could be unaware they're the killer? Let's say, for example, that someone argues with Lucy and she comes to hit her head, either by accident or through force. She leaves that person's company seemingly fine, then collapses later and is moved by someone else in a panic. Is it plausible that person would still not know they're responsible? Similarly, has Max ever suspected that Lucy's fall in the office contributed to her death? And let's not forget Cora saw him and Abi cleaning up the car lot.

I'm convinced it's Peter at the moment but I don't believe he knows. If not him, then Ronnie. Ronnie or Peter. I'm just not sure how they killed Lucy. My other guesses, though less solid, are Nick, Cindy and Masood.


This is exactly what I'm thinking, that the killer (killer, not murderer) doesn't know they caused Lucy's death. They delivered the knock to the head or the push that caused Lucy to sustain injury but left very soon after, if not instantly.
It would make for a tragic reveal, especially if the killer does turn out to be someone very close to Lucy. Imagine the guilt and shame the killer would have whilst accepting the reality that they caused the death of Lucy Beale.
Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Desdemona
Member Avatar

WalfordE20
27 Aug 2014, 00:47
Just for the sake of being hypothetical, is there any realistic way someone could be unaware they're the killer? Let's say, for example, that someone argues with Lucy and she comes to hit her head, either by accident or through force. She leaves that person's company seemingly fine, then collapses later and is moved by someone else in a panic. Is it plausible that person would still not know they're responsible?


I can only think of PTSD or a very serious case of denial/repression which could apply to Peter.
Or indeed a considerable time/space gap between the incident (blow to the head) and Lucy's death.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Dan
Member Avatar


I can't see any feasibility in someone hitting Lucy on the head with something hard enough to kill her and not know what they did. The only remotely plausible ways someone could have killed Lucy and not know about it is if they were in an advanced state of psychosis at the time of the murder and can't remember or they are so traumatised with PTSD that they have completely repressed the memory of what happened.

As Mrs Peel said, open head wounds bleed a lot. For example, look at professional wrestlers who blade in order to show more realism and make an "injury" seem more brutal. They make a tiny nick on their foreheads with an unseen razor blade and they bleed all over the place because that's what open heads wounds do. If anyone has any doubt, look up wrestlers and "blading" to see how head wounds are. In 99.9% of these circumstances, the individual who blades will be left with nothing more than a tiny cut.

My friend was hit by a car a few years ago and hit his head on the kerb. His injuries were not life threatening, he was discharged from hospital in under a week but there was blood pouring down his face due to a gashed head and witnesses thought he was in a much worse state than he was physically in the immediate aftermath of the accident.

If somebody hit Lucy with something hard enough to actually kill her, the evidence would be unmistakeable even if she didn't die on impact. There would be blood and lots of it. It would be completely unrealistic if the killer somehow didn't realise after leaving Lucy there massively bleeding out or if they walked away without noticing or looking to see whether their blow caused any damage.

The only way this could have worked is if Lucy had a closed head wound and died due to bleeding on the brain like Pauline Fowler did. She didn't because the police stated it was an open wound.

If the killer was in a psychotic state or is suffering from PTSD and is blocking it out, then that is potentially feasible. However, I'm really not sure.

Peter is a potential suspect now though. Did he interrupt Lauren talking to the cab driver because he was angry or because he thought he would say too much?

The police should and will be looking at people close to Lucy soon once they give dippy Emma Summerhayes for P45 for shagging a suspect.

They realised that Lucy was not killed on the Common and was transported there somehow. Due to this, they realised that this was not a botched mugging and that was staged. They would also have tested her body for any signs of oral, vaginal or anal rape plus her clothing and the position of it (was it torn? Was it hastily put back on? Were her underclothes missing?) for any sign of sexual assault. They would have tested Lucy's body for any secondary wounds to suggest whether she had attempted to fight her attacker off or whether there was any kind of physical struggle before Lucy was killed. This could manifest itself in bruising, scratching and cuts.

While we can assume that none of this was found as it has not been mentioned, what the police definitely would have done is a toxicology report as a matter of course but especially after hearing that Lucy was a recreational user of cocaine. Firstly, they'd want to see if Lucy was under the influence at the time of her death. Then they would want to track down her dealer who would automatically be a suspect and anyone who was potentially involved with Lucy's cocaine use.

Was Lucy in any drug debt? Had she tried to rip someone off? Was it a deal that had gone wrong? Had she threatened to stop being a good customer? Had she threatened to shop her dealer? These questions should be whirring around the minds of police officers with more than one functioning brain cell as should the fact that Lucy argued with both her father and her twin brother on the night she died and I hope they start asking these questions.

I have not seen the episode yet but I am led to believe that in Tuesday's episode, Deeply Dippy told the Beales that they may have their man due to the beanie hat CTC still. Stupid woman should not only be done for having a bit of ow's yer father with a suspect but for raising hopes based on nothing unless we aren't giving her enough credit and she's waiting to see how Peter and Ian react and if it's suspicious. But I suspect not. I suspect Emma does think that a man getting off a busy bus in the same area as someone who was killed anywhere in between one hour and three hours after said fact, after it's been proven and not disputed by anyone that she met someone else and returned to the Square shortly after means that they did it.

What does she intend to have Jay up in front of a judge for? For knowingly, willingly and with full beastliness of forethought, catching a London bus and getting off it at the destination he paid to get off it at?
Edited by Dan, 28 Aug 2014, 11:49.
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

Great post Dan, you've made some excellent points there. I think the idea of someone repressing the murder is another one that needs discussing, since apart from Lee's PTSD it's not been mentioned much amongst all the theories. How plausible is it that someone killed Lucy, maybe even moved her body, and then completely forgot? It sounds a little sensational to me but if anyone has any insight into this I'd love to hear about it.

Also, after tonight's episode I'm increasingly doubtful that Cindy was involved.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Professor Plum
Default Avatar

Dan, I like your point about PTSD. Didn't a certain young solider suffer from something like that when we first met him, a few months back? Isnt that why he was AWOL?
Just livin' in perfect New Zealand!
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Walford East
Member Avatar
Revenge Is A Dish Best Served Cold
Anyone know which episode it was where the police claimed Lucy lost a lot of blood from an open head wound? I would like to rewatch it.

I thought, infact I'm sure, they claimed Lucy hadn't died at the common because the body was laid out in a position that made it look staged which led them to claim the person who killed her tried to make it look like a robbery and that was the assumption they were going off.
Posted Image
Excellence is taught, knowledge is power, Forgiveness sets you free
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Walford East
Member Avatar
Revenge Is A Dish Best Served Cold
Professor Plum
28 Aug 2014, 21:19
Dan, I like your point about PTSD. Didn't a certain young solider suffer from something like that when we first met him, a few months back? Isnt that why he was AWOL?
I've always said it will be Lee and I still think that. I'm not sure if DTC is stupid enough to make the killer someone like Peter as that basically kills off two Beale legacy characters within the space of 12 months.
Posted Image
Excellence is taught, knowledge is power, Forgiveness sets you free
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Cupcake
Member Avatar

I still like the Lee theory.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mr Branning
Member Avatar

Lee certainly has a lot of potential - he seemed to be suspect number 1 initially but since then has been quiet. Have the police even properly spoken to him other than taking the swab?

We also saw him drunkenly mumble to his dad about doing something stupid in relation to Lucy - what if he genuinely meant the fact he killed her? He then had hours before he finally admitted to seeing Billy and Lucy arguing. That gave him plenty of hours to rack his brains to think about something else suspicious he'd seen.

I wouldn't really like it to be Lee as I don't really see the tragic angle DTC mentioned with him being the killer, and the Carters have already got plenty going on without having a killer amongst them, but his movements on the night of Lucy's death have yet to be properly clarified.
Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Dan
Member Avatar


That and Lee would have little to no impact. The reveal is five months away, he spent a lot of time off screen after Lucy's murder, he arrived barely a month before Lucy was killed and he has barely been developed outside of shagging Whitney.
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

I'm torn about who I want Lucy's killer to be. There's the classic conflict of not wanting a strong character written out but not wanting the culprit to be someone expendable and underwhelming. If I had to pick a killer I think I'd choose Ronnie and have her die in childbirth. Baby lives, mother dies.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Leon
Member Avatar

Shamelessness
23 Aug 2014, 19:19
This one? http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p024s2pg

It sounds to me like members of the production team criticising the storyline. I've transcribed it below:

"A whole minute, right?"
"A whole minute."
"But, you know, unless people are honest we can't...backstage video"
"Well they should've asked for a backstage video... The problem is with all this secret squirrel stuff, they're gonna shoot themselves in the foot because people don't know the story."
"Yeah, exactly."
"It's like, I get the idea but-"
"You've got to start trusting people."
"You've got to start trusting people."
I thought it sounded like that too but I thought "surely they wouldn't be stupid enough to not listen to the recording?" And didn't mention it because I thought it was dumb. Wow that's hilarious. :lol:
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mrs Peel
Member Avatar

Initially, the police reported Lucy's death to Ian as what appeared to be a random mugging, because her phone and purse had been taken. Yet within a couple of days, they reported that it appeared that Lucy wasn't killed on the Common, but elsewhere, that this was staged to look like a mugging. The primary reason, Ian was told, was the lack of blood found on the Common where Lucy's body was discovered. In fact, their wording listed lack of blood and other forensic evidence.

By that time, forensic medical personnel would, at least, have given Lucy a cursory examination, and the police forensic team would have examined the area around the spot where her body lay, for signs of a struggle etc on the ground, in the foliage - whether this appeared to have been disturbed etc. The fact that they mentioned lack of blood in connection with her head trauma, indicated that the wound was open. To be fair, the viewers saw Lucy from the front. Presumably, she was hit from behind of from her left side and the wound broke skin. Bleeding in head wounds is profuse, so there would have been blood down the back of her jacket. Obviously the soil/grass around the body tested negative for bloodstains.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · EastEnders Current & Future · Next Topic »
Add Reply