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 (367,863 Views)
Ross
Member Avatar
I'm in the kitchen eating a biscuit
I find the theory that Ronnie/Charlie killed Lucy pretty hilarious.

We've seen scenes of them alone - without anyone else in earshot - discussing how Ronnie killed Carl, and Charlie showing clear shock that his girlfriend is a killer... and yet they didn't even mention Lucy? Riiiiiiiiiight.
Massive thanks to NickM for this wonderful signature! :)

Posted Image
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Winters
Member Avatar

I'm now quite convinced that it's Ian. He could have given it away to Ben Hardy in some way whose very good at reading body language. A few smug, secretive smiles at the right moments would be enough.

And at first the audience will react, like, "No, how could it be Ian? How could he do that do Lucy and react the way he has this whole year?". But if you consider part of the breakdown was realising he has unwittingly killed his own daughter, and then acted innocentently because he didn't want to go to prison for it, it makes sense.

It would also make for a great exit soryline for Adam Woodwyatt, if he plans to leave within 5-10 years while the murder will still be remmbered (as he might). Peter hasn't been in it that long, at least not with this casting, and isn't so close to Lucy that it wil make such an impact. And if it's not to be treated like the standard soap murder, where a murderer always gets sent to prison, then it will be someone who stays. It will be dragged out, and only the killer and the audience will know until he breaks down and confesses (which could be a powerful future storyline).

Edited by Winters, 26 Nov 2014, 15:13.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Dan
Member Avatar


I admit it would be fantastically done were it Ian but I don't think it is. Even if it were in a moment of psychosis which he has blocked out, he is one of the show's three original characters left and is the only one who been in the show continuously. I don't know how he could live with being in Walford (for all his faults, he loves his children) and it would not simply be a case of a couple of months in a mental institution and out, he would have to be committed indefinitely which could mean life and it simply couldn't work.

That is unless Adam Woodyatt has indicated he wants to call it a day which I think would be unlikely.

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
 
Mrs Peel
Member Avatar

Ross
26 Nov 2014, 13:50
I find the theory that Ronnie/Charlie killed Lucy pretty hilarious.

We've seen scenes of them alone - without anyone else in earshot - discussing how Ronnie killed Carl, and Charlie showing clear shock that his girlfriend is a killer... and yet they didn't even mention Lucy? Riiiiiiiiiight.
Did you find the fact that Stacey killed Archie hilarious? Especially since no one, not even the actress, knew who the killer was until the day of the live airing, and she'd spent several episodes asking Bradley if he'd done it?

This isn't something cut and dried, and if the producer has based the momentum and the execution (unintended pun) of this storyline on an Agatha Christie novel, I think you'll find a ruse of Christie's is to have a parallel storyline in tandem with the main murder mystery and tangentially connected; the least likely of all the characters involved is usually the one who's the guilty party, and one on whom the least amount of attention has been focused. Yet when the reason behind the crime has been revealed, everything fits into place.

By that method alone, it could very well be Ronnie and Charlie. Read - don't watch - Death on the Nile.

Oh, and Charlie didn't show shock at all at Ronnie's confession; he showed no emotion, and if you recall Ronnie's words when she confessed the killing, they were I killed a man, not someone (the word that Pam Coker used, when telling Billy what she did), she was precise. She'd killed a man. It goes without saying that she could also have killed a girl. Maybe Charlie thought Lucy's death was the work of two novices, unprecedented and in the spur of whatever moment it might have been.
Edited by Mrs Peel, 26 Nov 2014, 22:28.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Ross
Member Avatar
I'm in the kitchen eating a biscuit
Mrs Peel
26 Nov 2014, 22:25
Ross
26 Nov 2014, 13:50
I find the theory that Ronnie/Charlie killed Lucy pretty hilarious.

We've seen scenes of them alone - without anyone else in earshot - discussing how Ronnie killed Carl, and Charlie showing clear shock that his girlfriend is a killer... and yet they didn't even mention Lucy? Riiiiiiiiiight.
Did you find the fact that Stacey killed Archie hilarious? Especially since no one, not even the actress, knew who the killer was until the day of the live airing, and she'd spent several episodes asking Bradley if he'd done it?

This isn't something cut and dried, and if the producer has based the momentum and the execution (unintended pun) of this storyline on an Agatha Christie novel, I think you'll find a ruse of Christie's is to have a parallel storyline in tandem with the main murder mystery and tangentially connected; the least likely of all the characters involved is usually the one who's the guilty party, and one on whom the least amount of attention has been focused. Yet when the reason behind the crime has been revealed, everything fits into place.

By that method alone, it could very well be Ronnie and Charlie. Read - don't watch - Death on the Nile.

Oh, and Charlie didn't show shock at all at Ronnie's confession; he showed no emotion, and if you recall Ronnie's words when she confessed the killing, they were I killed a man, not someone (the word that Pam Coker used, when telling Billy what she did), she was precise. She'd killed a man. It goes without saying that she could also have killed a girl. Maybe Charlie thought Lucy's death was the work of two novices, unprecedented and in the spur of whatever moment it might have been.
I did find the fact that Stacey killed Archie hilarious, actually. But they've clearly learned their lesson since then, so this story is going to be a helluva lot different to how that turned out. They won't have let something as big as that continuity-wise slip through into the show.

Ronnie and Charlie haven't necessarily been the 'least featured' in the story. As far as we are aware, they are not involved in the story. Kat and Alfie don't seem to be involved in the story and have hardly been featured in relation to the mystery. But I think it's safe to say neither of them did it. Neither Ronnie or Charlie have a motive to want Lucy dead. Fair enough, one may be established - but we've seen them speaking in private loads of times since Lucy's murder, and they haven't mentioned her once? That makes the fact that they were uninvolved very unlikely.

Can I also just mention that the story is deemed as 'raw', and when we find out who killed Lucy we are going to be 'emotional'. Neither Ronnie or Charlie would have this kind of affect. At all. It's a very sensationalist route that would not only be completely ineffable and unrealistic if they chose to go ahead with it, and I highly doubt they'd be THAT stupid yo go through with it. If anything Ronnie/Charlie were the original killers and it was changed.
Massive thanks to NickM for this wonderful signature! :)

Posted Image
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Josh
Default Avatar

Ross
26 Nov 2014, 23:21
Mrs Peel
26 Nov 2014, 22:25

Quoting limited to 2 levels deepDeath on the Nile.

Oh, and Charlie didn't show shock at all at Ronnie's confession; he showed no emotion, and if you recall Ronnie's words when she confessed the killing, they were I killed a man, not someone (the word that Pam Coker used, when telling Billy what she did), she was precise. She'd killed a man. It goes without saying that she could also have killed a girl. Maybe Charlie thought Lucy's death was the work of two novices, unprecedented and in the spur of whatever moment it might have been.
I did find the fact that Stacey killed Archie hilarious, actually. But they've clearly learned their lesson since then, so this story is going to be a helluva lot different to how that turned out. They won't have let something as big as that continuity-wise slip through into the show.

Ronnie and Charlie haven't necessarily been the 'least featured' in the story. As far as we are aware, they are not involved in the story. Kat and Alfie don't seem to be involved in the story and have hardly been featured in relation to the mystery. But I think it's safe to say neither of them did it. Neither Ronnie or Charlie have a motive to want Lucy dead. Fair enough, one may be established - but we've seen them speaking in private loads of times since Lucy's murder, and they haven't mentioned her once? That makes the fact that they were uninvolved very unlikely.

Can I also just mention that the story is deemed as 'raw', and when we find out who killed Lucy we are going to be 'emotional'. Neither Ronnie or Charlie would have this kind of affect. At all. It's a very sensationalist route that would not only be completely ineffable and unrealistic if they chose to go ahead with it, and I highly doubt they'd be THAT stupid yo go through with it. If anything Ronnie/Charlie were the original killers and it was changed.
I think you could be spot on here. We know that the killer was changed very early on as it didn't fit with being an emotional outcome and we know Ronnie was due to go into 'full psychopathic mode'.
Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Shamelessness
Member Avatar


They definitely changed their plans for Ronnie while Sam was on her break, probably to tie her in to the Nick storyline instead. I think her taking Archie's ring off and the fact they've completely forgotten about Carl and the Whites shows that Evil Ronnie is no more.
Posted Image
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Bec
Member Avatar

I don't fully agree. I do think the removal of the ring was symbolic but I think it will be just as symbolic when she puts it back on. Which I do think will happen.

Ronnie wants to live a happy life with Charlie and her baby but I don't think it's going to happen. She's the 'tragic heroine' after all. Someone will stand in the way of her happiness. That person will be Nick Cotton and he will pay the price.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
MrJames
Member Avatar

Yeah I think the Ronnie plans have been changed in the middle. I still think she's a ticking time bomb though. She's living her merry little life at the moment but that is pretty much certain not to last. I enjoy that suspense.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Dan
Member Avatar


Ronnie is a psychopath and whether she killed Lucy or not, she can't just switch that off.

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
 
Jamie Fowler
Member Avatar

So, for the heck of it, here's who (I think) we can rule out:

Sharon, Ian, Dot, Phil, Carol, Sonia, Liam, Kat, Big Mo, Rebecca, Patrick, Alfie, Bobby, Stacey, Denise (after tonight), Shirley, Shabnam, Roxy, Tamwar, Masood, Fatboy, Cora, Dexter, Tina, Linda, Mick, Johnny, Nancy, Stan, Babe, Tosh, Donna, Pam, Summerhayes, Kush, Buster
Posted Image
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
danny1987
Default Avatar

Peter if not Whitney if not Lola. My current theory
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Bec
Member Avatar

I wouldn't rule out Denise just yet. Or Shabnam, Pam and Emma. There's an outside chance it could be one of them.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
MrJames
Member Avatar

Mitchells 42
27 Nov 2014, 21:42
So, for the heck of it, here's who (I think) we can rule out:

Sharon, Ian, Dot, Phil, Carol, Sonia, Liam, Kat, Big Mo, Rebecca, Patrick, Alfie, Bobby, Stacey, Denise (after tonight), Shirley, Shabnam, Roxy, Tamwar, Masood, Fatboy, Cora, Dexter, Tina, Linda, Mick, Johnny, Nancy, Stan, Babe, Tosh, Donna, Pam, Summerhayes, Kush, Buster
You're ruling Mo out? She's my hot favourite!
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
david
Default Avatar

Ross
 
I did find the fact that Stacey killed Archie hilarious, actually. But they've clearly learned their lesson since then, so this story is going to be a helluva lot different to how that turned out. They won't have let something as big as that continuity-wise slip through into the show.


Yes, the Archie murder story was very poorly executed. There was no way that Stacey could have killed Archie as it was originally shown at Christmas. She had been seen across the square, singing carols, only seconds before.

When the flash backs were later shown, after the killer was revealed, they were able to insert at least three visitors to Archie in the Vic during the time it had taken the carol singers to sing one and a bit verses of a carol in the original Christmas episodes.

I will very be disappointed if the Lucy story is not more coherent than this.[edit_reason]typo[/edit_reason]
Edited by david, 27 Nov 2014, 22:01.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Desdemona
Member Avatar

Bec
27 Nov 2014, 21:22
I don't fully agree. I do think the removal of the ring was symbolic but I think it will be just as symbolic when she puts it back on. Which I do think will happen.

Ronnie wants to live a happy life with Charlie and her baby but I don't think it's going to happen. She's the 'tragic heroine' after all. Someone will stand in the way of her happiness. That person will be Nick Cotton and he will pay the price.
I am waiting anxiously for Ronnie to get back into survival/killer mode. This happy family performance is very uncharacteristic indeed.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Dan
Member Avatar


I would definitely rule out Denise.

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
 
Mrs Peel
Member Avatar

Dan
27 Nov 2014, 21:31
Ronnie is a psychopath and whether she killed Lucy or not, she can't just switch that off.

I actually think that the original storyline called for Peter to be the killer, as I think it's been known a long time that Ben Hardy wasn't going to renew his contract, but that was changed because with Peter being the murderer, the entire Beale dynamic is ripped apart yet again.

Ronnie and Charlie being involved in the death would affect all of the major established families on the Square in some way, because they are all tangentially connected. The heartbreak would be Ronnie having a baby at last, but being prevented from being with that child because of having to serve a prison sentence.

I don't think Nick is necessarily as evil as is going to be made out. His own remark about him being a psychopath was prescient, but ironic, and he's already warned Dot that she doesn't know the full measure of Charlie. Instead, I suspect someone will try to frame Nick as the murderer, but he won't be.

I will say this for Treadwell-Collins - he's a master in lulling people into a false sense of security over certain characters. He's no more changed his mind about Ronnie being a villain than he has about bringing back Tyler and Anthony Moon.

Even if she isn't the killer, Ronnie has killed. She's murdered, and she has to atone for what she did, something that she hasn't done as yet.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Winters
Member Avatar

Well, now it just seems more likely to be Ian. They're starting to seriously push Peter (which means it can't be him). And in the same episode mentioning, and seriously by Phil, that Ian's not really bad all the way through.

I think this is the start of a wild goose chase. Peter will be seriously pushed as a suspect and just as we can draw a sigh of relief...even worse...Ian.
Edited by Winters, 28 Nov 2014, 00:48.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
WalfordE20
Member Avatar

This is technically a reply for another thread but I feel it's more appropriate here. I think the unsent text was meant for Peter. Reading between the lines of next week's spoilers and it seems that no sooner has Ian found the message then he's off to the Brannings to stop Peter's proposal.

Last night was, interestingly, the first time anyone has genuinely questioned his innocence. The first time in seven months. It's true that Peter knew about the cocaine, but what Denise doesn't know is the real reason he was upset that night. Nothing could be more upsetting than Ian's thoughtless comments causing one of his twins to turn on and kill the other.

Peter was indeed tending the allotment while Lucy's belongings while buried. I remember one scene of him in particular that had no real basis but just consisted of him sitting there and brooding, yards away from her phone and purse. Maybe he found them, but decided to bury them again because of some incriminating evidence.

Announced departure or not, Peter is still the only killer I really want. If it's not him, I'm starting to think he at least suspects it was.
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