I really don't think it SHOULD or WOULD be the Cokers as Lucy's death is a 'game changer' and will 'change relationships on the square' forever. So to me, that makes it a close person.
Rule1, if you killed someone get close to the investigation and accuse other people Max got close to Emma and framed Jake. Something to hide but he didn't kill her.
Lauren wanted to know how far Emma got and then kept the final clue on the paper from the police and has accused jake the cab driver, Max. She's got Stacey thinking its a beale.
She felt guilty over jake so helped get him out, Maybe at first she didn't know it was her with the body being moved and a mugging staged, but maybe shes realised Jane moved the body.
....
june 6th Lauren visits Jake, now im even more sure its her
Lauren would make sense if you framed it in a way where her looking through Emma's files to see what she had on her rather than to find out who killed Lucy and what we're interpreting as a dilemma as to what to do about finding out who did it, is actually panic as she senses the net closing in around her.
Other things wouldn't make sense though, such as accusing Max in front of Stacy and why Jane would give her a false alibi in the kitchen without good reason.
Something that I find odd is the introduction of Richard Blackwood's character on the live ep. Isn't he supposed to be a drug dealer. What if Lucy died in his flat maybe from a blood clot from when she banged her head. She was there collecting drugs. He then dumps her body in the woods. Wouldn't be the first time EastEnders have thrown a major twist. Can't think of any other reason why he'd be involved.
I'm baffled about the timing of him coming into the show as well only on thr the live ep of all, could he play a part in it?
Maybe he is the new doctor?
Maybe he is a lawyer? Someones going to be in need of one perhaps.
Will the politically correct BBC really put a black
Man in as a drug dealer. I dont think they will.
If the character that he's playing is supposed to be a "bad guy" then it makes more sense that people jump to the conclusion that he is a drug dealer rather than a doctor or lawyer.
I also rule Peter out because of Lauren saying "..all I want to do is talk to Peter" - if she thought he killed her best friend surely she'd be repulsed by the idea of him. I think the problem is HER end:
1) She thinks someone close to her killed Lucy
2) The baby isn't his
I think 2 would be a bit of a stretch and she doesn't seem that bothered about the baby anyway, but not being able to marry him because she (thinks she) knows her mum killed his sister, would make sense.
I think maybe Abi knows. She had been taken driving lessons that seemed to go nowhere Maybe the "it wasn't there!" was Emma speaking about Max's car; Tanya (w/ Jane) didn't know what to do so called the house
"We need you do drive to Walford common, now! Bring gloves xxx"
I don't think anyone could fool scenes of crime officers, morticians, doctor who certified death etc.
Lucy must be dead. She couldn't have play-acted with all those people around her.
But who actually saw her body. Ian identified her at the mortuary and if I remember correctly he insisted on going alone. It could have been anyone if he is in on her disappearance.
I would feel short changed if any of the following were the killers:
The Cokers- Massive anticlimax if its them, they are in for a great week though with Nick, Ronnie(if she dies) and stans death. Somebody needs to deal with the funerals tho and ultimately I think thats why they are in the soap-for all these imminent funerals.
Suicide/Natural Causes- In the longest running whodunnit in soap history this would be the ultimate anti climax if it turned out nobody did it.
Cindy- Not a big enough character for me and it would be a disappointing.
Anybody who wasn't on the final list of 14 suspects- I wouldn't be impressed.
Anybody else would be interesting for me.
Is it really the longest running? Wasn't "Who shot Phil" longer?
But who actually saw her body. Ian identified her at the mortuary and if I remember correctly he insisted on going alone. It could have been anyone if he is in on her disappearance.
We saw her. That's enough of a reason to confirm that it is lucy and she is dead.
Wouldn't it be interesting if multiple characters all had a hand to play in how she died?
Peter supplied the drugs, Max the knock to the head, fights with Abi & Whitney due to the affair and bullying, Lee an attempted subduction in the woods that went wrong, Les & Pam out walking and she accused them of hurting her so finished her off, would be funny!
BIB I've been coming to this conclusion over the past few weeks although I suspect some viewers will be disappointed with that. I can see a sequence of events that may have contributed to Lucy's death.
The random happenings like Lucy hurting her head in the car lot, Peter being her 'dealer', the out of context reference to Ben's hearing problems last week, Jake returning for the 'live' - ie what happened in the show flat. I've given up trying to pin Lucy's death on one character and my gut feeling is there was no intent to kill her..
I think maybe Ben and Jay think they killed Lucy. If you combine the fall at the car lot, Ben and Jay knocking her out by pushing her to floor during mugging - there could have been a lot of head trauma leading up to the fatal blow made her vulnerable.
I have given up on guessing. So much doesn't add up, like how Emma came up with that number when previously she had no idea who killed Lucy or why, how Lauren suddenly figured it out from a number that could mean anything....and why Lauren couldn't get into Emmas phone. It seems like it was done that way because thy have different 'killers' in mind. It seems like these things are being pulled out of thin air to confuse us. I only hope when it's revealed that they explain all of the things that don't add up.
I'm not sure I would buy Jane/Peter thinking it's less distressing to the rest of the family for Lucy to have been mugged and murdered by an unknown person and left to die cold, alone and terrified in a dark common as apposed her being accidently dying during an argument her twin brother who actually loves Lucy very, very much and would have to live with it for the rest of his life - I don't think the rest of the Beale's would hold it against him forever and would support him through it.
On top of that thinking that the truth, when it inevitably comes to light, that Jane dumped her allegedly beloved step-daughter's body like a piece of rubbish is less distressing rather than just tell the truth in the first place.
Seems a bit far fetched to me, even by Eastenders standards.
When it first happened my thinking was she died from the head wound from the car lot because didn't the police say there was no other wounds and she it wasn't a drugs overdose so maybe a blood clot. I'm not sure how long it was though from the fall in the cabin to her dying. But it might not take much to kill her if it was a blood clot.
When it first happened my thinking was she died from the head wound from the car lot because didn't the police say there was no other wounds and she it wasn't a drugs overdose so maybe a blood clot. I'm not sure how long it was though from the fall in the cabin to her dying. But it might not take much to kill her if it was a blood clot.
I must admit I also found it odd that they didn't mention that there was an older wound ie; the car lot one. If you are looking for a killer and you know someone has possibly hit her days before you are going to want to eliminate that person.
If the character that he's playing is supposed to be a "bad guy" then it makes more sense that people jump to the conclusion that he is a drug dealer rather than a doctor or lawyer.
Raines and Lucys pimp would be my guess if hes a badman, or perhaps a bent lawyer?
I must admit I also found it odd that they didn't mention that there was an older wound ie; the car lot one. If you are looking for a killer and you know someone has possibly hit her days before you are going to want to eliminate that person.
Maybe the police thought it happened that day. But since that was the only wound, how did she die if not from that?
When it first happened my thinking was she died from the head wound from the car lot because didn't the police say there was no other wounds and she it wasn't a drugs overdose so maybe a blood clot. I'm not sure how long it was though from the fall in the cabin to her dying. But it might not take much to kill her if it was a blood clot.
That was about a week before though and seemed superficial so was likely pretty much healed and even if it hadn't they'd be able to tell it was a week old injury. I don't think the car lot injury is of any relevance to her death, just another thing for us to ponder upon
Whilst the 25th was fantastic, the narrative was less so focused on classic EE. Essentially, the story revolved upon two fairly new characters: Archie Mitchell and Stacey Slater. For the 30th, the focus has been redirected to the show's original family, and surrounding that, we've got Nick and Dot's storyline, which is being handled beautifully may I add. They're also re-creating the first ever scene of EE, even using snippets of the same dialogue.
Everything seems to have been masterfully and intelligently crafted. I mean, if we think about it, perhaps one of the contributing reasons for the Slater's fire was solely to allow for the recreation of the original opening scene. I think it's brilliant how everything has been building towards that. I think it'll be a special scene, something for the real, hardcore fans.
In relation to the killer reveal, from this, considering the ways of DTC, I really think we can rule out the likes of Abi, Lola (are people still fixed on her?) and Pam/Les ect. It'll be a long-standing character, with the twists being made up in the form of a number of other characters being both directly and indirectly involved (which is where the Abi's and Lola's come in (I'm thinking Cindy and Bobby)). In my opinion, it'll be Denise and Jane though, who will ultimately be revealed as the answer to 'Whodunnit?', with one 'killing' her, and the other helping to cover it up.
Next week, the show deserves high ratings and high acclaim. The promotion has been nothing short of amazing… Radio trails, countless promos, teasers, Graham Norton Special, tour competition, billboards (back in April). They've done it all - it should definitely pay off.
Maybe the police thought it happened that day. But since that was the only wound, how did she die if not from that?
But everyone knows that a wound begins to clot so that it can heal this is what stops it bleeding. If someone dies the body dies, the repair system does and a wound would not begin to heal. If I know that then I'd be interested in knowing why forensics couldbt establish a two/three day old wound from one inflicted that day.
That was about a week before though and seemed superficial so was likely pretty much healed and even if it hadn't they'd be able to tell it was a week old injury. I don't think the car lot injury is of any relevance to her death, just another thing for us to ponder upon
LOL just choked on my brew :D:D:D
Then I'm curious as to why a girl has been killed, they would surely know she had an old wound and nobody has thought to look into the fact that someone may have hit her days before, someone may have a problem with her that they should follow up?
Lauren would make sense if you framed it in a way where her looking through Emma's files to see what she had on her rather than to find out who killed Lucy and what we're interpreting as a dilemma as to what to do about finding out who did it, is actually panic as she senses the net closing in around her.
What net though? She pulled the information out of a bin. It was gone, Emma hadn't a clue as far as anyone was aware, the case was as good as dead. There is no plausible reason for her to stir it all up if she was involved.
The idea of keeping close to the case does not apply as the 1 person who had worked out something is dead, had been dismissed and was considered useless by her ex colleagues.
If Lauren was involved she would be doing what Max did. Disposing of Emma's notes.
Comments
That means my nan will think whoever's wearing her lucky colour will be the killer
june 6th Lauren visits Jake, now im even more sure its her
clip
http://www.dailymotion.com/video/kECGMZGYPn9FgHa8ZET
Other things wouldn't make sense though, such as accusing Max in front of Stacy and why Jane would give her a false alibi in the kitchen without good reason.
Why does that make you so sure she did it? There wasn't anything there that made me think she did it.
I'm baffled about the timing of him coming into the show as well only on thr the live ep of all, could he play a part in it?
If the character that he's playing is supposed to be a "bad guy" then it makes more sense that people jump to the conclusion that he is a drug dealer rather than a doctor or lawyer.
1) She thinks someone close to her killed Lucy
2) The baby isn't his
I think 2 would be a bit of a stretch and she doesn't seem that bothered about the baby anyway, but not being able to marry him because she (thinks she) knows her mum killed his sister, would make sense.
I think maybe Abi knows. She had been taken driving lessons that seemed to go nowhere Maybe the "it wasn't there!" was Emma speaking about Max's car; Tanya (w/ Jane) didn't know what to do so called the house
"We need you do drive to Walford common, now! Bring gloves xxx"
But who actually saw her body. Ian identified her at the mortuary and if I remember correctly he insisted on going alone. It could have been anyone if he is in on her disappearance.
Is it really the longest running? Wasn't "Who shot Phil" longer?
We saw her. That's enough of a reason to confirm that it is lucy and she is dead.
BIB I've been coming to this conclusion over the past few weeks although I suspect some viewers will be disappointed with that. I can see a sequence of events that may have contributed to Lucy's death.
The random happenings like Lucy hurting her head in the car lot, Peter being her 'dealer', the out of context reference to Ben's hearing problems last week, Jake returning for the 'live' - ie what happened in the show flat. I've given up trying to pin Lucy's death on one character and my gut feeling is there was no intent to kill her..
On top of that thinking that the truth, when it inevitably comes to light, that Jane dumped her allegedly beloved step-daughter's body like a piece of rubbish is less distressing rather than just tell the truth in the first place.
Seems a bit far fetched to me, even by Eastenders standards.
I must admit I also found it odd that they didn't mention that there was an older wound ie; the car lot one. If you are looking for a killer and you know someone has possibly hit her days before you are going to want to eliminate that person.
Raines and Lucys pimp would be my guess if hes a badman, or perhaps a bent lawyer?
Anything but the stereotype black drug dealer.
Maybe the police thought it happened that day. But since that was the only wound, how did she die if not from that?
That was about a week before though and seemed superficial so was likely pretty much healed and even if it hadn't they'd be able to tell it was a week old injury. I don't think the car lot injury is of any relevance to her death, just another thing for us to ponder upon
LOL just choked on my brew
Everything seems to have been masterfully and intelligently crafted. I mean, if we think about it, perhaps one of the contributing reasons for the Slater's fire was solely to allow for the recreation of the original opening scene. I think it's brilliant how everything has been building towards that. I think it'll be a special scene, something for the real, hardcore fans.
In relation to the killer reveal, from this, considering the ways of DTC, I really think we can rule out the likes of Abi, Lola (are people still fixed on her?) and Pam/Les ect. It'll be a long-standing character, with the twists being made up in the form of a number of other characters being both directly and indirectly involved (which is where the Abi's and Lola's come in (I'm thinking Cindy and Bobby)). In my opinion, it'll be Denise and Jane though, who will ultimately be revealed as the answer to 'Whodunnit?', with one 'killing' her, and the other helping to cover it up.
Next week, the show deserves high ratings and high acclaim. The promotion has been nothing short of amazing… Radio trails, countless promos, teasers, Graham Norton Special, tour competition, billboards (back in April). They've done it all - it should definitely pay off.
But everyone knows that a wound begins to clot so that it can heal this is what stops it bleeding. If someone dies the body dies, the repair system does and a wound would not begin to heal. If I know that then I'd be interested in knowing why forensics couldbt establish a two/three day old wound from one inflicted that day.
Then I'm curious as to why a girl has been killed, they would surely know she had an old wound and nobody has thought to look into the fact that someone may have hit her days before, someone may have a problem with her that they should follow up?
What net though? She pulled the information out of a bin. It was gone, Emma hadn't a clue as far as anyone was aware, the case was as good as dead. There is no plausible reason for her to stir it all up if she was involved.
The idea of keeping close to the case does not apply as the 1 person who had worked out something is dead, had been dismissed and was considered useless by her ex colleagues.
If Lauren was involved she would be doing what Max did. Disposing of Emma's notes.