I wouldn't want to lose two children, which is why I'd report Bobby.
As far as I am concerned, my daughter would be lost to me if I did something to cover up her slaughter. What's happening right now is a grave insult to her life. In death she had her body dumped in the woods, before being carved up by forensics, all because Jane wanted to cover for her killed.
As far as I am concerned, my son would be lost to me if I sheltered him from the consequences of killing his own sister. Deep down, Bobby knows he's responsible but what he's being taught right now is secrecy and blame shifting. He will more than likely kill again, because the sense of responsibility, most people would feel, is being taught out of him.
Thank you, reading some of the responses in this thread, I was beginning to think I was losing the plot.
Me too, was starting to think I was in the moral minority!
Hardly, most of the population have done something at some point that could kill someone without intending to - be it hitting them, pushing them, or throwing something at them. Thats very different to the Bulger case - where there was an intent and a onspiracy to abduct and harm, and a further decision to hurt and kill, plus concealement . Bobby hasn't proved to be a psychopath yet, and Ben already fills that role for the show . Stupidity and age works as an explanation so far.
There is no murder without intent to kill, or reasonable expectation. And there probably should be no manslaughter conviction anyway- as there's no proof what was the killer blow. They even laid out the point that its perfectly possible to kill someone unintentionally - by showing Lucy taking previous damage from all sorts of people and actions.
There's also every reason for the family not to reopen the case. Bobby gets punished for no purpose. Ian loses another child and has to go through a pointless court case. Jane is guilty of a heap of offences, that will leave the family without its mother. And there's no proof of who did it - so Jane can be accused anyway, or may decide to cover for Bobby in court.
Peter is hardly in a great position to complain - Lucy could have died from his drugs anytime.
Peter is in a GREAT position to complain. His sister DIED as a result of his brothers actions. The drugs Peter supplied did not kill her. There is a mass difference there.
I don't agree that Bobby should be locked up, but trying to make out Peter is not entitled to be angry is ridiculous. I also think not telling Bobby is wrong...the whole effect of keeping this secret from him and him not learning the consequences of his actions will lead to a deeply disturbed child growing up and an almost certain psychopath in the making (which is probably why they have done this).
Yes whereas you'd rather have a traumatised child, wouldn't you?
if you can't understand why someone would cover up a crime to protect the psychological health of their little boy then not only have you got nothing out of this storyline, I don't think you're hard-wired to ever be able to.
The actual cover up and lie has and will continue to make a "disturbing" child grow into a psychopath. Receiving no punishment, he must have an idea of what he did...he will have not learnt a valuable lesson at an influential time in his life, meaning he could do it again. If you look at the psychological history of sociopaths, mass murderers; there is often incidents akin to this in the background.
The actual cover up and lie has and will continue to make a "disturbing" child grow into a psychopath. Receiving no punishment, he must have an idea of what he did...he will have not learnt a valuable lesson at an influential time in his life, meaning he could do it again. If you look at the psychological history of sociopaths, mass murderers; there is often incidents akin to this in the background.
I agree.
I do understand Ian's feelings here with not wanting to report Bobby. I do think that is a realistic reaction where a parent would feel protective of a child, no matter what he's done. However, in the long run, not reporting a child who does this will do more harm than good as nickymonger points out. Bobby needs psychiatric help and extensive treatment to understand the gravity of what he has done. If Bobby is not reported, he will not receive it. I think Ian's initial reaction made sense, but over time, I hope they show him coming to the realisation that if nothing is done, Bobby could potentially develop into something far worse. Ian does not have to see that now, but it would be nice if EE showed him understanding that over time.
Also, I think it made sense that Ian wanted to be protective of Bobby while Peter wanted to report him. I think it is realistic that a parent would go to all lengths to protect their child while a sibling would be more likely to look more at the horrible action committed, especially since it resulted in another sibling's death.
It about protecting the family bobby didnt mean to kill Lucy which is why Jane told him she was alright. As much as its a tragic loss for Ian the thought for losing another child would break him. DTC knows what he is doing and has been planned for months. the 'killer for Lucy will properly be put onto Nick Cotton.
Just caught up with the thread and it seems pretty split. I think the Venables/Thompson comparison came up purely because a lot of people are saying that because the character is 11, he wouldn't have deliberately set out to hurt her which I believe is incorrect. In the eyes of the law at the age of 10, if you commit a crime you can be arrested and prosecuted for it because at that age you do more or less know what is right and wrong.
I think whether he meant to kill her or not is very much open to interpretation at the moment and to use the excuse of his age and how he is a child seems to be a bit of a cop out. If he were 6/7 then I'd fully agree but in my view at 11, if you whack someone over the head and they then die, you face the consequences. Bobby is now left with the impression that he can pretty much do whatever he wants and it will be fine because his mum will sort it all out for him, which is a dangerous road to go down, just look at Dot and Nick as an example.
Peter is in a GREAT position to complain. His sister DIED as a result of his brothers actions. The drugs Peter supplied did not kill her. There is a mass difference there.
I don't agree that Bobby should be locked up, but trying to make out Peter is not entitled to be angry is ridiculous. I also think not telling Bobby is wrong...the whole effect of keeping this secret from him and him not learning the consequences of his actions will lead to a deeply disturbed child growing up and an almost certain psychopath in the making (which is probably why they have done this).
Not knowing that you have done something doesn't turn anyone into a psychopath. Nor is anyone who hits anyone else a psychopath - by your definition, everyone on the set would be a psychopath because they all hit people. If you locked up every preteen who has hit someone the prisons would be full of preteens. The psychologists won't diagnose anyone as a psychopath until their late teens - so there's no hope of sifting out the real ones either - it can't be done - legally or medically.
Peter can stay as just angry -because he has emotional involvement, and guilt issues, with Lucy and no emotional involvement in either Bobby or Jane, or willingness to protect and follow Ian, . He also can't decide to sacrifice his own emotional needs to save Bobby, as, as CIndy told us all very clearly, he has no paternal or maternal instincts, and none in play anyway. He's effectively the voice of the vindictive authoritarian, with an added personal emotional need for vengeance, versus the consensus of the family need. He's written like that to produce the debate - as are the cases of the two other deaths in the square - which were also both justifiable, and raise similar issues. .
it takes no time to decide not to do anything - because the writers had Jane frame the right question. What would you have done in my position? Ian and Cindy reach the same conclusion Jane did. Jane didn't have the luxury of time to think - so neither do the others. It doesn't take much thinking about - just imagination and a bit of analysis of the options, and consequences. You could form it even more briefly - as does punishing Bobby help anything - and he answer is obviously no - or does family matter more than legal corectness for most humans - and the answer there is yes too.
Not knowing that you have done something doesn't turn anyone into a psychopath. Nor is anyone who hits anyone else a psychopath - by your definition, everyone on the set would be a psychopath because they all hit people. If you locked up every preteen who has hit someone the prisons would be full of preteens. The psychologists won't diagnose anyone as a psychopath until their late teens - so there's no hope of sifting out the real ones either - it can't be done - legally or medically.
Peter can stay as just angry -because he has emotional involvement, and guilt issues, with Lucy and no emotional involvement in either Bobby or Jane, or willingness to protect and follow Ian, . He also can't decide to sacrifice his own emotional needs to save Bobby, as, as CIndy told us all very clearly, he has no paternal or maternal instincts, and none in play anyway. He's effectively the voice of the vindictive authoritarian, with an added personal emotional need for vengeance, versus the consensus of the family need. He's written like that to produce the debate - as are the cases of the two other deaths in the square - which were also both justifiable, and raise similar issues. .
it takes no time to decide not to do anything - because the writers had Jane frame the right question. What would you have done in my position? Ian and Cindy reach the same conclusion Jane did. Jane didn't have the luxury of time to think - so neither do the others. It doesn't take much thinking about - just imagination and a bit of analysis of the options, and consequences. You could form it even more briefly - as does punishing Bobby help anything - and he answer is obviously no - or does family matter more than legal corectness for most humans - and the answer there is yes too.
A synopsis of why our society is crumbling around our ears.
The family will just carry on as normal except...............................................................................................nobody will piss Bobby off!
Not knowing that you have done something doesn't turn anyone into a psychopath. Nor is anyone who hits anyone else a psychopath - by your definition, everyone on the set would be a psychopath because they all hit people. If you locked up every preteen who has hit someone the prisons would be full of preteens. The psychologists won't diagnose anyone as a psychopath until their late teens - so there's no hope of sifting out the real ones either - it can't be done - legally or medically.
Peter can stay as just angry -because he has emotional involvement, and guilt issues, with Lucy and no emotional involvement in either Bobby or Jane, or willingness to protect and follow Ian, . He also can't decide to sacrifice his own emotional needs to save Bobby, as, as CIndy told us all very clearly, he has no paternal or maternal instincts, and none in play anyway. He's effectively the voice of the vindictive authoritarian, with an added personal emotional need for vengeance, versus the consensus of the family need. He's written like that to produce the debate - as are the cases of the two other deaths in the square - which were also both justifiable, and raise similar issues. .
it takes no time to decide not to do anything - because the writers had Jane frame the right question. What would you have done in my position? Ian and Cindy reach the same conclusion Jane did. Jane didn't have the luxury of time to think - so neither do the others. It doesn't take much thinking about - just imagination and a bit of analysis of the options, and consequences. You could form it even more briefly - as does punishing Bobby help anything - and he answer is obviously no - or does family matter more than legal corectness for most humans - and the answer there is yes too.
Not knowing that you have done something doesn't turn anyone into a psychopath.
Do you think Bobby doesn't know? I mean really. The boy is 11 not 5. It doesn't matter how much Jane has convinced him otherwise, there will always be a nagging feeling at the back of his mind which is telling him he is responsible. You know what you do at 11 and you remember too. Right now Bobby is young (although not completely oblivious) but as he gets older through his adolescence and adulthood, the true nature of his crime will become a reality for him and that's not because of any shock revelation but because deep down he has always known the truth.
I totally agree what others are saying. While I understand Jane and Ian's stance on this, Bobby not facing any help or treatment for his actions will have a spiralling effect on the rest of his life. He hasn't faced any consequences for his actions and never will. His sense of morality - what is right, what is wrong has now been tampered with, with absolutely no resolution or ramifications. This can only have a negative impact.
Not knowing that you have done something doesn't turn anyone into a psychopath. Nor is anyone who hits anyone else a psychopath - by your definition, everyone on the set would be a psychopath because they all hit people. If you locked up every preteen who has hit someone the prisons would be full of preteens. The psychologists won't diagnose anyone as a psychopath until their late teens - so there's no hope of sifting out the real ones either - it can't be done - legally or medically.
Peter can stay as just angry -because he has emotional involvement, and guilt issues, with Lucy and no emotional involvement in either Bobby or Jane, or willingness to protect and follow Ian, . He also can't decide to sacrifice his own emotional needs to save Bobby, as, as CIndy told us all very clearly, he has no paternal or maternal instincts, and none in play anyway. He's effectively the voice of the vindictive authoritarian, with an added personal emotional need for vengeance, versus the consensus of the family need. He's written like that to produce the debate - as are the cases of the two other deaths in the square - which were also both justifiable, and raise similar issues. .
it takes no time to decide not to do anything - because the writers had Jane frame the right question. What would you have done in my position? Ian and Cindy reach the same conclusion Jane did. Jane didn't have the luxury of time to think - so neither do the others. It doesn't take much thinking about - just imagination and a bit of analysis of the options, and consequences. You could form it even more briefly - as does punishing Bobby help anything - and he answer is obviously no - or does family matter more than legal corectness for most humans - and the answer there is yes too.
I have to love that an 11 year old who walks up to his sister and whacks her with a jewellery box, killing her could not possibly ever become a psychopath but then to go to paint Peter as the bad one for daring to feel angry that his brother killed his twin sister and his step mum dumped her in the woods. In fact, if anything, that was the part Peter very much focussed on and I cannot blame him.
In fact, if you reread my post, I actually state I can understand why Jane/Ian would cover it up and i can understand why Peter couldn't understand it. The way Bobby killed Lucy was not through some accidental push or fall...he whack her in the head and upon watching her passed out on the floor (even if he thought alive) thought to tell his mum that "she" started it, even though she just stood there. And this, even in real life, would never stay buried...can you imagine finding out in your teens you killed your sister and your family covered it up? This would never have a good outcome and neither will it in soap. They are building him into the next Nick and I wouldn't be surprised if we have the kid do more and more little, but subtle things leading him up to being built into a pyscho. Why do you think Ronnie is so popular? It is because we have seen her evolve and she has layers of complexity. These are the best characters on soap!
Bobby was the same age as the killers of James Bulger. A ten year old who can hit someone hard enough to kill, and justify it because "they make people unhappy" is a psychopath in the making. I don't believe he could believe she was fine enough to go out and convincing him of that is storing up untreated trauma for the future.
Letting Jake go to prison while the police chased their tails and wasted taxpayers money is morally indefensible,
Murder is treated far too lightly in EE and I'm sick of people who will "do anything for their children" escaping their deserved punishment.
"What I did for love?". A twisted sort of love, maybe even narcissism expressed through one's children, and sod everyone else.
The Beales are now Bad People, apart from Peter.
Agree. Bravo. Jane's character has been particularly assasinated. The body in the boot scenario on the way to hospital can never be explained away. She's vile.
Peter is in a GREAT position to complain. His sister DIED as a result of his brothers actions. The drugs Peter supplied did not kill her. There is a mass difference there.
I don't agree that Bobby should be locked up, but trying to make out Peter is not entitled to be angry is ridiculous. I also think not telling Bobby is wrong...the whole effect of keeping this secret from him and him not learning the consequences of his actions will lead to a deeply disturbed child growing up and an almost certain psychopath in the making (which is probably why they have done this).
Has anybody mentioned that Ian already has a psycho son Steven?
Agree. Bravo. Jane's character has been particularly assasinated. The body in the boot scenario on the way to hospital can never be explained away. She's vile.
BIB I agree - don't see a way back for the character. Even if she confesses all she'll serve a prison sentence. Whatever her intentions I think she's also made Bobby potentially mentally unstable -something for the 40th anniversary maybe? I'll be watching for sociopathic/psychotic tendencies over the next few years.
I also found it odd that Jane didn't even attempt CPR when she found Lucy's body - even if there was no pulse . The whole taking her to hospital thing was unbelievable - why put her in the boot if that was the case.
I gave my tuppence worth on the Who Killed Lucy Beale Thread over the weekend regarding the holes in this reveal plotline, but as this thread regards the aftermath I'd like to explain why I think that where they've gone with this is a bit of a mess.
There has already been an explanation that Bobby was not the original reveal. I think to the best of my knowledge (correct me if I'm wrong) that it was Jane and then Cindy and then eventually Bobby. Here's where it goes wrong. As I've said in the previous thread I think this change happened late in the game despite anything that may have been said to the contrary. The reasons behind my thinking are the hype, marketing, trailer, official suspect list, competition etc. The Bobby reveal of course had nothing to do with this and had everyone up in arms. I wonder if the change came about after more people than they wanted cracked the dodgy Jane alibi at Christmas and EE wanted this whodunnit to be unsolvable to the very end. The 25th Anniversary centred on the Mitchells and the Brannings and so the 3Oth naturally should focus on the other original EE Family the Beales. Good, salt of the earth Eastenders. Flawed at times but the roots of Albert Square. If they had stuck with Jane we may have cracked the case but without damaging the entire Beale clan. If they had changed to Cindy the same. However, the Bobby scenario, Jane's confession/lie? and the family's acceptance to go along with the secret, in my opinion only, causes unrepairable damage to this family or requires total suspension of belief.
If the writers want to reflect reality then you've got to look at those news stories where close communities have rallied around a family only to find that they've been lied to all along. No way can those people stay living there.
If the murder is pinned on Nick (lazy writing) or another member of the square.(making the entire Beale family even more unlikeable) Then the truth has to come out and soon. Otherwise there's going to be a lot of empty chairs at Beales and more uneaten cod to keep Billy in hot meals for a lifetime. Or Jane is going to have to do a Dot and turn herself in, going back to her original lie and serve time for Bobby. Whether or not this will atone with her body in the boot line with viewers remains to be seen.(I think it will be a long time before we can watch her having a laugh with the girls or singing Bananarama songs) We'll also need to know who her accomplice was on that night for the carrying the body across the common silliness.(We will have to go with Ian really being that thick on that} If the above or something along these lines doesn't happen then I think for the sake of reality the Square has to say goodbye once and for all to there longest serving family.
The way Jane went about things with dumping lucy was wrong, and dark. Why not put her back on the sofa in a sleep position, and back door unlocked? Or something like that? Or taken her to hospital saying she found lucy like that.
This SL is to go on for 4 months. Someone innocent arrested, and a trial?
Emma's phone is still in the car lot, so at a guess her phone will go unnoticed, then found and handed into the police, unlocked and Jane questioned to what "The secret" is. I do hope justice will be served. More so with Bobby at some point. Another dot and Nick will be ridiculous IMO .
I gave my tuppence worth on the Who Killed Lucy Beale Thread over the weekend regarding the holes in this reveal plotline, but as this thread regards the aftermath I'd like to explain why I think that where they've gone with this is a bit of a mess.
There has already been an explanation that Bobby was not the original reveal. I think to the best of my knowledge (correct me if I'm wrong) that it was Jane and then Cindy and then eventually Bobby. Here's where it goes wrong. As I've said in the previous thread I think this change happened late in the game despite anything that may have been said to the contrary. The reasons behind my thinking are the hype, marketing, trailer, official suspect list, competition etc. The Bobby reveal of course had nothing to do with this and had everyone up in arms. I wonder if the change came about after more people than they wanted cracked the dodgy Jane alibi at Christmas and EE wanted this whodunnit to be unsolvable to the very end. The 25th Anniversary centred on the Mitchells and the Brannings and so the 3Oth naturally should focus on the other original EE Family the Beales. Good, salt of the earth Eastenders. Flawed at times but the roots of Albert Square. If they had stuck with Jane we may have cracked the case but without damaging the entire Beale clan. If they had changed to Cindy the same. However, the Bobby scenario, Jane's confession/lie? and the family's acceptance to go along with the secret, in my opinion only, causes unrepairable damage to this family or requires total suspension of belief.
If the writers want to reflect reality then you've got to look at those news stories where close communities have rallied around a family only to find that they've been lied to all along. No way can those people stay living there.
If the murder is pinned on Nick (lazy writing) or another member of the square.(making the entire Beale family even more unlikeable) Then the truth has to come out and soon. Otherwise there's going to be a lot of empty chairs at Beales and more uneaten cod to keep Billy in hot meals for a lifetime. Or Jane is going to have to do a Dot and turn herself in, going back to her original lie and serve time for Bobby. Whether or not this will atone with her body in the boot line with viewers remains to be seen.(I think it will be a long time before we can watch her having a laugh with the girls or singing Bananarama songs) We'll also need to know who her accomplice was on that night for the carrying the body across the common silliness.(We will have to go with Ian really being that thick on that} If the above or something along these lines doesn't happen then I think for the sake of reality the Square has to say goodbye once and for all to there longest serving family.
Totally, EE have ruined the beales now! Instead of celebrating then, they have effectively sounded the death knell. If Adam Woodyatt makes it to the 35th anniversary I would be surprised. Bobby would have to whack him round the head so that he can wake up and realise what an idiot he's been and turn Bobby and Jane in. MAYBE then Ian can be redeemed. But I wouldn't count on it
Comments
Me too, was starting to think I was in the moral minority!
Peter is in a GREAT position to complain. His sister DIED as a result of his brothers actions. The drugs Peter supplied did not kill her. There is a mass difference there.
I don't agree that Bobby should be locked up, but trying to make out Peter is not entitled to be angry is ridiculous. I also think not telling Bobby is wrong...the whole effect of keeping this secret from him and him not learning the consequences of his actions will lead to a deeply disturbed child growing up and an almost certain psychopath in the making (which is probably why they have done this).
The actual cover up and lie has and will continue to make a "disturbing" child grow into a psychopath. Receiving no punishment, he must have an idea of what he did...he will have not learnt a valuable lesson at an influential time in his life, meaning he could do it again. If you look at the psychological history of sociopaths, mass murderers; there is often incidents akin to this in the background.
I agree.
I do understand Ian's feelings here with not wanting to report Bobby. I do think that is a realistic reaction where a parent would feel protective of a child, no matter what he's done. However, in the long run, not reporting a child who does this will do more harm than good as nickymonger points out. Bobby needs psychiatric help and extensive treatment to understand the gravity of what he has done. If Bobby is not reported, he will not receive it. I think Ian's initial reaction made sense, but over time, I hope they show him coming to the realisation that if nothing is done, Bobby could potentially develop into something far worse. Ian does not have to see that now, but it would be nice if EE showed him understanding that over time.
Also, I think it made sense that Ian wanted to be protective of Bobby while Peter wanted to report him. I think it is realistic that a parent would go to all lengths to protect their child while a sibling would be more likely to look more at the horrible action committed, especially since it resulted in another sibling's death.
I think whether he meant to kill her or not is very much open to interpretation at the moment and to use the excuse of his age and how he is a child seems to be a bit of a cop out. If he were 6/7 then I'd fully agree but in my view at 11, if you whack someone over the head and they then die, you face the consequences. Bobby is now left with the impression that he can pretty much do whatever he wants and it will be fine because his mum will sort it all out for him, which is a dangerous road to go down, just look at Dot and Nick as an example.
I think he's going to be the next Michael myers. 😈😂
31st celebrations..
*dark eery trailer. A tearful Jane looks into Ian's eyes
"It's happening again"
Dot narration: The innocence of childhood too soon taken away.
'There's a little s*** amongst them. All this week on BBC1'
Not knowing that you have done something doesn't turn anyone into a psychopath. Nor is anyone who hits anyone else a psychopath - by your definition, everyone on the set would be a psychopath because they all hit people. If you locked up every preteen who has hit someone the prisons would be full of preteens. The psychologists won't diagnose anyone as a psychopath until their late teens - so there's no hope of sifting out the real ones either - it can't be done - legally or medically.
Peter can stay as just angry -because he has emotional involvement, and guilt issues, with Lucy and no emotional involvement in either Bobby or Jane, or willingness to protect and follow Ian, . He also can't decide to sacrifice his own emotional needs to save Bobby, as, as CIndy told us all very clearly, he has no paternal or maternal instincts, and none in play anyway. He's effectively the voice of the vindictive authoritarian, with an added personal emotional need for vengeance, versus the consensus of the family need. He's written like that to produce the debate - as are the cases of the two other deaths in the square - which were also both justifiable, and raise similar issues. .
it takes no time to decide not to do anything - because the writers had Jane frame the right question. What would you have done in my position? Ian and Cindy reach the same conclusion Jane did. Jane didn't have the luxury of time to think - so neither do the others. It doesn't take much thinking about - just imagination and a bit of analysis of the options, and consequences. You could form it even more briefly - as does punishing Bobby help anything - and he answer is obviously no - or does family matter more than legal corectness for most humans - and the answer there is yes too.
A synopsis of why our society is crumbling around our ears.
I agree.
Do you think Bobby doesn't know? I mean really. The boy is 11 not 5. It doesn't matter how much Jane has convinced him otherwise, there will always be a nagging feeling at the back of his mind which is telling him he is responsible. You know what you do at 11 and you remember too. Right now Bobby is young (although not completely oblivious) but as he gets older through his adolescence and adulthood, the true nature of his crime will become a reality for him and that's not because of any shock revelation but because deep down he has always known the truth.
I totally agree what others are saying. While I understand Jane and Ian's stance on this, Bobby not facing any help or treatment for his actions will have a spiralling effect on the rest of his life. He hasn't faced any consequences for his actions and never will. His sense of morality - what is right, what is wrong has now been tampered with, with absolutely no resolution or ramifications. This can only have a negative impact.
Don't forget Ian killed Bobby's mum by pushing her down the stairs as well.
No. Laura fell down the stairs by accident. It had nothing to do with Ian.
Yes you are right. I've just re-watched the scene.
I have to love that an 11 year old who walks up to his sister and whacks her with a jewellery box, killing her could not possibly ever become a psychopath but then to go to paint Peter as the bad one for daring to feel angry that his brother killed his twin sister and his step mum dumped her in the woods. In fact, if anything, that was the part Peter very much focussed on and I cannot blame him.
In fact, if you reread my post, I actually state I can understand why Jane/Ian would cover it up and i can understand why Peter couldn't understand it. The way Bobby killed Lucy was not through some accidental push or fall...he whack her in the head and upon watching her passed out on the floor (even if he thought alive) thought to tell his mum that "she" started it, even though she just stood there. And this, even in real life, would never stay buried...can you imagine finding out in your teens you killed your sister and your family covered it up? This would never have a good outcome and neither will it in soap. They are building him into the next Nick and I wouldn't be surprised if we have the kid do more and more little, but subtle things leading him up to being built into a pyscho. Why do you think Ronnie is so popular? It is because we have seen her evolve and she has layers of complexity. These are the best characters on soap!
Agree. Bravo. Jane's character has been particularly assasinated. The body in the boot scenario on the way to hospital can never be explained away. She's vile.
Has anybody mentioned that Ian already has a psycho son Steven?
BIB I agree - don't see a way back for the character. Even if she confesses all she'll serve a prison sentence. Whatever her intentions I think she's also made Bobby potentially mentally unstable -something for the 40th anniversary maybe? I'll be watching for sociopathic/psychotic tendencies over the next few years.
I also found it odd that Jane didn't even attempt CPR when she found Lucy's body - even if there was no pulse . The whole taking her to hospital thing was unbelievable - why put her in the boot if that was the case.
There has already been an explanation that Bobby was not the original reveal. I think to the best of my knowledge (correct me if I'm wrong) that it was Jane and then Cindy and then eventually Bobby. Here's where it goes wrong. As I've said in the previous thread I think this change happened late in the game despite anything that may have been said to the contrary. The reasons behind my thinking are the hype, marketing, trailer, official suspect list, competition etc. The Bobby reveal of course had nothing to do with this and had everyone up in arms. I wonder if the change came about after more people than they wanted cracked the dodgy Jane alibi at Christmas and EE wanted this whodunnit to be unsolvable to the very end. The 25th Anniversary centred on the Mitchells and the Brannings and so the 3Oth naturally should focus on the other original EE Family the Beales. Good, salt of the earth Eastenders. Flawed at times but the roots of Albert Square. If they had stuck with Jane we may have cracked the case but without damaging the entire Beale clan. If they had changed to Cindy the same. However, the Bobby scenario, Jane's confession/lie? and the family's acceptance to go along with the secret, in my opinion only, causes unrepairable damage to this family or requires total suspension of belief.
If the writers want to reflect reality then you've got to look at those news stories where close communities have rallied around a family only to find that they've been lied to all along. No way can those people stay living there.
If the murder is pinned on Nick (lazy writing) or another member of the square.(making the entire Beale family even more unlikeable) Then the truth has to come out and soon. Otherwise there's going to be a lot of empty chairs at Beales and more uneaten cod to keep Billy in hot meals for a lifetime. Or Jane is going to have to do a Dot and turn herself in, going back to her original lie and serve time for Bobby. Whether or not this will atone with her body in the boot line with viewers remains to be seen.(I think it will be a long time before we can watch her having a laugh with the girls or singing Bananarama songs) We'll also need to know who her accomplice was on that night for the carrying the body across the common silliness.(We will have to go with Ian really being that thick on that} If the above or something along these lines doesn't happen then I think for the sake of reality the Square has to say goodbye once and for all to there longest serving family.
This SL is to go on for 4 months. Someone innocent arrested, and a trial?
Emma's phone is still in the car lot, so at a guess her phone will go unnoticed, then found and handed into the police, unlocked and Jane questioned to what "The secret" is. I do hope justice will be served. More so with Bobby at some point. Another dot and Nick will be ridiculous IMO .
Ha ha, yes!
Totally, EE have ruined the beales now! Instead of celebrating then, they have effectively sounded the death knell. If Adam Woodyatt makes it to the 35th anniversary I would be surprised. Bobby would have to whack him round the head so that he can wake up and realise what an idiot he's been and turn Bobby and Jane in. MAYBE then Ian can be redeemed. But I wouldn't count on it