Who Killed Lucy Beale? - Latest theories, updates and spoilers (Merged)

1507508510512513516

Comments

  • rfonzorfonzo Posts: 11,771
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    So in summary the reasons why people did not like the conclusion to the story line:

    1) Bobby being a peripheral character in the soap let alone a main suspect leads to think this unsatisfying.

    2) Bobby did not really have a motive and in fact we do not know why he would hit Lucy let alone it being a possibility given she is an adult and he is small child.

    3) We as the the audience were starved of the killer giving the reasons for the death of Lucy Beale. Being given a reason would have created a sense of pathos like all good dramas give. Eastenders in this case just did give us that.

    4) It was completely unrealistic for Ian to forgive a child for losing his daughter within the matter of 10 minutes.

    5) Jane carrying a body into her car and placing it in a field by herself is ludicrous? (For me this where the story line failed as Eastenders could have exploited more intelligence into the plot by Jane having an accomplice. For example, if Max had have become involved after he knew Lauren had attacked her then Tanya could have turned up to the wedding unexpectedly not be-knowing to all of this and then Jane and Max would bricking it)

    6) Tanya and Peggy coming back was pointless and a waste of time.

    7) The Beale family is now seen as tainted by this ridiculous conclusion. The show has probably lost credit for it's unrealistic conclusion.

    8) Some of the lines that the characters produced were pathetic.
    Jane: 'No one could help Lucy, you know what she was like.' That did not stop Jane trying to help her and more importantly that does not stop you trying to help her in the future. You just don't give up and you don't cover a killing like that. What is more you don't marry the man who you have become accessory for this debacle.

    Ian: 'Eventually Lucy will fade from memory and people might forget this ever happened.' Has anyone told Ian that there is such a thing a cold case department within the constabulary. Maybe this plot could turn up in Silent Witness as a BBC spin off or maybe Trevor Eve's character from Waking the Dead will suddenly rock up in Albert Square tear Jane and Ian apart. :D

    Jane: 'I wanted to take her to hospital but I made a decision not to at the junction.' You don't take someone to hospital if you put someone in the boot of a car.

    9) More should have been put into the conclusion given that you were going to develop the story over 10 months. Jane running to Ian about bookings for the business seem ridiculous the morning after she dumped Lucy's body seem ridiculous. Also, some plot devices such as Summerhayes saying to Max in the car 'you know' became redundant s they bore no significance.



    Anything I have missed?

    Apart from that it was all right.:D
  • alias aliasalias alias Posts: 8,824
    Forum Member
    Crossword

    "Son, I love you"
    "Frame Mas"

    http://imgur.com/x5UDQKM


    This is the only thing that bugs me http://oi60.tinypic.com/2uza2ix.jpg Zoomed in so you can't see janes car is missing.
  • IWasBoredIWasBored Posts: 3,418
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    DTC compared the storyline to marmite as a way of trying to justify it. That just didn't make sense to me. If you don't like marmite, you don't buy it. So is he saying if you don't like the storyline don't watch it? DTC had to respond to the criticism sunshine but I think the way in which he had done so is alienating people even more.

    I am guesing what DTC is saying is that those who love marmite prefer it to any other type of spread, but if you hate it then you cannot stomach it. This is an anology which you can apply to soap opera's. My cat loved marmite. One day I was spreading it on my sandwiches and she jumped up on the table. I had to tell her to get down but she just wrapped her front paws around my wrist and licked the bit of marmite that was on my fingers. I really like the smell of marmite as well.

    I thought that this forum would be closed now seeing as we now know who did it
  • Lindy_LoueLindy_Loue Posts: 9,874
    Forum Member
    Incredible post, exactly what I have been thinking! Jane's a liar, bobby's a liar, cindy's an idiot and Ian forgave his wife is a ridiculous amount of time. The whole family apart from Peter has gone down in my estimations and i think rather than showcase and highlight one of the oldest families on eastenders dtc has just completely ruined them

    Agree 100%. It is so disappointing that a drama that has been so interesting and gripping to watch for the last year or so, should come to this.

    I know there are other SLs, but the Beale story is amoral nonsense >:(
  • Aurora13Aurora13 Posts: 30,243
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Pete_W wrote: »
    I'm really moving towards the thought that the story was changed along the way, there's too many inconsistencies/bizarre character actions otherwise. I think the intensity of a few of the performances on the live show really papered over the cracks that a lot of this didn't make sense

    I said that the other night. There were two sociopathic characters roaming around outside Beale house. Ronnie and Ben together with Charlie on personal terms with a dodgy undertaker!.. And Jay to bury the purse and phone. This for me wasn't a coincidence. It was set up for this lot to move body after fearing being implicated in her death in my view. Instead we have Jane lugging body single handed onto Square where party revellers were in full swing and then leaving her on common. Seriously which makes the most sense?

    Wouldn't surprise me after the reaction that they don't try and bring an accomplice in who helped Jane at later date. Max or Mas.
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 6
    Forum Member
    rfonzo wrote: »
    So in summary the reasons why people did not like the conclusion to the story line:

    1) Bobby being a peripheral character in the soap let alone a main suspect leads to think this unsatisfying.

    2) Bobby did not really have a motive and in fact we do not know why he would hit Lucy let alone it being a possibility given she is an adult and he is small child.

    3) We as the the audience were starved of the killer giving the reasons for the death of Lucy Beale. Being given a reason would have created a sense of pathos like all good dramas give. Eastenders in this case just did give us that.

    4) It was completely unrealistic for Ian to forgive a child for losing his daughter within the matter of 10 minutes.

    5) Jane carrying a body into her car and placing it in a field by herself is ludicrous? (For me this where the story line failed as Eastenders could have exploited more intelligence into the plot by Jane having an accomplice. For example, if Max had have become involved after he knew Lauren had attacked her then Tanya could have turned up to the wedding unexpectedly not be-knowing to all of this and then Jane and Max would bricking it)

    6) Tanya and Peggy coming back was pointless and a waste of time.

    7) The Beale family is now seen as tainted by this ridiculous conclusion. The show has probably lost credit for it's unrealistic conclusion.

    8) Some of the lines that the characters produced were pathetic.
    Jane: 'No one could help Lucy, you know what she was like.' That did not stop Jane trying to help her and more importantly that does not stop you trying to help her in the future. You just don't give up and you don't cover a killing like that. What is more you don't marry the man who you have become accessory for this debacle.

    Ian: 'Eventually Lucy will fade from memory and people might forget this ever happened.' Has anyone told Ian that there is such a thing a cold case department within the constabulary. Maybe this plot could turn up in Silent Witness as a BBC spin off or maybe Trevor Eve's character from Waking the Dead will suddenly rock up in Albert Square tear Jane and Ian apart. :D

    Jane: 'I wanted to take her to hospital but I made a decision not to at the junction.' You don't take someone to hospital if you put someone in the boot of a car.

    9) More should have been put into the conclusion given that you were going to develop the story over 10 months. Jane running to Ian about bookings for the business seem ridiculous the morning after she dumped Lucy's body seem ridiculous. Also, some plot devices such as Summerhayes saying to Max in the car 'you know' became redundant s they bore no significance.



    Anything I have missed?

    Apart from that it was all right.:D


    Good list, looks ridiculous when written like that...

    to add onto some of your points

    10) Jane entering a house she doesn't live in, talking to bobby, sending him to bed, carrying a body into a car, then dragging it across a common without ANYONE realising

    11) Ian immediately trusting Janes story after she has kept this a secret for 10 months

    12) Ian not asking Jane HOW a 10 year old killed a grown woman and WHY!

    13) the whole idea in the first place that they can believe Bobby 'doesn't realise' what he did
  • Ten_BenTen_Ben Posts: 2,534
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Aurora13 wrote: »
    I said that the other night. There were two sociopathic characters roaming around outside Beale house. Ronnie and Ben together with Charlie on personal terms with a dodgy undertaker!.. And Jay to bury the purse and phone. This for me wasn't a coincidence. It was set up for this lot to move body after fearing being implicated in her death in my view. Instead we have Jane lugging body single handed onto Square where party revellers were in full swing and then leaving her on common. Seriously which makes the most sense?

    Wouldn't surprise me after the reaction that they don't try and bring an accomplice in who helped Jane at later date. Max or Mas.

    I have a growing suspicion that the storyline was changed somewhere but that still doesn't excuse some of the gaping plot holes, however we are where we are. Some of the questions may yet get answered.

    We don't yet know for sure that Jane didn't have an accomplice. We know only what she's told Ian, as the flashback didn't show anything of the murder itself or the dumping of the body, so it's perfectly possible that she's still not being totally honest with him (even without the hospital lies).

    Indeed, it opens up many other possibilities storyline-wise if she is keeping quiet about some things or someone else's involvement.

    I guess, though, what some people are annoyed about is that we still don't know exactly what happened that night despite being told that we would and therefore the producers can still change things in the future to suit themselves. Not that the latter's anything new in a soap opera, of course.
  • alias aliasalias alias Posts: 8,824
    Forum Member
    Maybe Kathy contacted Ben thats why they wanted to go to miami, And He told Phil in the off screen part of telling him about the purse and phone and then phil was going to tell Ian but he couldn't and thats why She can't come back because Phil says Ian wouldn't cope.

    The stories have been intertwined to make it look like they killed lucy.
  • alias aliasalias alias Posts: 8,824
    Forum Member
    We know Jane lied first saying she did it, then saying she was taking her to hospital, so its not a stretch she is still protecting Mas, Max and on a outside chance Denise.
  • JamieHTJamieHT Posts: 12,195
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Why did no CCTV pick up Jane's car?
  • PacerkezPacerkez Posts: 1,050
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    One thing just popped to mind, correct me if I'm wrong, but Didn't Bobby ask if he was in trouble? Like he knew he'd done something?
  • rfonzorfonzo Posts: 11,771
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Pacerkez wrote: »
    One thing just popped to mind, correct me if I'm wrong, but Didn't Bobby ask if he was in trouble? Like he knew he'd done something?

    Surely he would have heard all that ranting and raving and worked out what he actually did.
  • alias aliasalias alias Posts: 8,824
    Forum Member
    JamieHT wrote: »
    Why did no CCTV pick up Jane's car?

    She was never a suspect, and the cameras wouldn't necessarily by focused to read number plates, so unless she got a speeding ticket when she said she was at home..
  • Aurora13Aurora13 Posts: 30,243
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    rfonzo wrote: »
    Surely he would have heard all that ranting and raving and worked out what he actually did.

    It showed you can't have a row in Beale house without folks upstairs hearing. Bobby was in the loft as well.
  • Aurora13Aurora13 Posts: 30,243
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    She was never a suspect, and the cameras wouldn't necessarily by focused to read number plates, so unless she got a speeding ticket when she said she was at home..

    That's where the storyline is deficient. We all know that the family are one of the strands of an enquiry from day 1. How much forensic work was done at house? Get a cadaver dog to sniff Jane car and it is game over. I assume Mas must have given Jane an alibi for the night.
  • IWasBoredIWasBored Posts: 3,418
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    I think the they have had a lot more negative feedback than they would like to admit! Everyone was saying how great ee was again in the run up to the 30th but with so many plot holes and complete character assisinations a considerable number of people are completely pee'd off. DTC compared the storyline to marmite as a way of trying to justify it. That just didn't make sense to me. If you don't like marmite, you don't buy it. So is he saying if you don't like the storyline don't watch it? DTC had to respond to the criticism sunshine but I think the way in which he had done so is alienating people even more.

    As I was saying earlier but I must not have posted the message properly, this means that Dtc thinks that if you love marmite, then you'd prefer it to all other spreads, but if you hate it then you can't stomach it. The analogy applies to soap opera's.
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 590
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    The marmite analogy referring to soaps in general is not relevant.

    People who are peeved are the ones who engaged so it's not that they dismiss soaps in general, quite the opposite in fact.

    The people most peeved fell into the trap of taking the mystery seriously and taking on board the information presented. Marmite don't come into it IMO. In fact in terms of dealing with criticism it is again a cheap cop out. Why not deal with the issues people have instead?

    They blatantly set out to waste peoples valuable time by presenting "evidence" that people could analyse, it encouraged people re-watch hours of episodes etc., spread the word, engage with friends & family and no doubt increase viewership.

    This to me is the shame and it galls me that there was no need for it. The killer isn't even in the main picture to promote the storyline.

    Even this one point alone Mr DTC, instead of saying it's "marmite" please explain how this was in any way fair. I know it will never be answered.

    My feeling is this: short term gain is a bad strategy and there will be a backlash. EE asked us to take it seriously, we are among the ones that did and it was thrown it in our faces. If DTC had given an inkling of an conditional apology it might have appeased a lot of people. He is not unaware that the poor fools who followed his wild goose chase are aggrieved.

    If's it is marmite, well i used to like it but the manufacturer labelled it falsely and it's kinda put me off it going forward.

    I will sign off from the thread now. Best of luck everyone, esp Madlinger, Ten Ben, Jende (heart & soul of the great thread that it was) & MattxFactor among many more who engaged and entertained.

    I think you all deserved better.:) I guess if this worries us life could be worse as people have so much more important things to worry about.
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 43
    Forum Member
    Incredible post, exactly what I have been thinking! Jane's a liar, bobby's a liar, cindy's an idiot and Ian forgave his wife is a ridiculous amount of time. The whole family apart from Peter has gone down in my estimations and i think rather than showcase and highlight one of the oldest families on eastenders dtc has just completely ruined them

    Yep. How they held back having them all click their fingers at the end before going into the Addams Family theme tune I'll never know. Perhaps that's part of the promised future development Ha ha!
  • colourgreencolourgreen Posts: 91
    Forum Member
    Pete_W wrote: »
    Good list, looks ridiculous when written like that...

    to add onto some of your points

    10) Jane entering a house she doesn't live in, talking to bobby, sending him to bed, carrying a body into a car, then dragging it across a common without ANYONE realising

    11) Ian immediately trusting Janes story after she has kept this a secret for 10 months

    12) Ian not asking Jane HOW a 10 year old killed a grown woman and WHY!

    13) the whole idea in the first place that they can believe Bobby 'doesn't realise' what he did

    14) No forensics, none at all. No defense wounds on Lucy from Denise, or Abi, none of Denise or Abi's hair or skin, none done on the common flat, none on Ian's house or Max's.

    That's been bugging me for days >:(
  • olivejolivej Posts: 14,696
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    14) No forensics, none at all. No defense wounds on Lucy from Denise, or Abi, none of Denise or Abi's hair or skin, none done on the common flat, none on Ian's house or Max's.

    That's been bugging me for days >:(

    omg, so true, surely she would have had SOMEONES DNA on her.......... :confused:
  • olivejolivej Posts: 14,696
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Pete_W wrote: »
    Good list, looks ridiculous when written like that...

    to add onto some of your points

    10) Jane entering a house she doesn't live in, talking to bobby, sending him to bed, carrying a body into a car, then dragging it across a common without ANYONE realising

    11) Ian immediately trusting Janes story after she has kept this a secret for 10 months

    12) Ian not asking Jane HOW a 10 year old killed a grown woman and WHY!

    13) the whole idea in the first place that they can believe Bobby 'doesn't realise' what he did

    or without anyone HEARING her!

    Ian and Denise were still awake just before Lucy arrived home - surely they didnt fall asleep that quickly................. :confused:

    Ian needed to get changed into his pj's, brush his teeth, do whatever men do in the bathroom before they go to sleep..........

    They must seriously all sleep like the dead if NO-ONE heard anything at all
  • MissMonkeyMooMissMonkeyMoo Posts: 3,373
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    rfonzo & Pete_W Excellent lists and posts o the problems with the storyline. You have summed up nicely why I still have issues with the conclusions several days after the reveal! There are just too many issues with everything we have been told and whilst some of this may be deliberate to revisit and conclude the storyline at a later date, there is no way that the Beale family can be redeemed for what they have done. Ian was always a slimy, money grabbing character that at times you couldn't stand and at other times you felt sorry for but he was never a weak push-over, he was quite ruthless and stopped at nothing to get his own way. I simply cannot accept that they have now turned him into Jane's lap dog and that he can accept that his only daughter - the child he called 'The One' was killed by her half brother and he is not only ok with it but is going to cover it up. Nonsense. Sorry, I know I keep saying it but I just can't help it. You don't always have to agree with a storyline to appreciate it, but a storyline does have to make sense for it to be accepted.
  • Ten_BenTen_Ben Posts: 2,534
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    14) No forensics, none at all. No defense wounds on Lucy from Denise, or Abi, none of Denise or Abi's hair or skin, none done on the common flat, none on Ian's house or Max's.

    That's been bugging me for days >:(

    15) Phones - no acknowledgement that the police or Lucy's network provider identified that her phone had been reactivated months after her unexplained death. Likewise, enquiries with the relevant network providers would likely to have been able to plot Ian's and Jane's movements that night if their phones weren't switched off. That would have exposed both of their alibis.

    16) What was the reference to a number 15 bus - a scrip-writing error? Pretty poor, if so, as would seem to be the case. Annoying to me, as I thought I'd spotted a well-hidden genuine clue and worked what I thought was a plausible theory around it. Grr. >:(

    If Blandatious is still reading - thanks for the comments and thanks for your excellent input into this thread, your theories were great and I enjoyed reading and debating them (as I did with everyone else's).
  • deans6571deans6571 Posts: 6,137
    Forum Member
    Mum2Megs wrote: »
    Although i feel extremely ripped off by the outcome (Bobby being the killer), i think they did an amazing job at the lives! Apart from 1 or 2 mistakes (Max fumbling his words, Tanya and "Hows Adamgate" - Were there anymore that i missed?)


    ....I spotted another mistake. When Jane was talking to Ian (in the living room) about Bobby, she said, ".....he's a 10 year old boy", however, later on in the episode, when Ian was crying and was telling Jane they should forgive him, he said ".....he's an 11 year old child".
  • JamieHTJamieHT Posts: 12,195
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    She was never a suspect, and the cameras wouldn't necessarily by focused to read number plates, so unless she got a speeding ticket when she said she was at home..

    I'm sorry, but the first thing I would do is check the CCTV of all roads leading to the common. Even if there was no number plate recognition, they would surely be able to recognise the make and model.

    The police investigation has been laughable and an insult to the Metropolitan Police.
Sign In or Register to comment.