It's so obvious!
Why hasn't Peter figured out it was Rob who killed Tina!
1 of 2
Also poor Peter is so hung over in drink all the time...I would think it's impossible for him to think logically.. ..
Is it so obvious? As far as mst people (including Peter) are concerned Rob and Tina had very little to do with each other and he had no real motive. Only Rob and the audience know she threatened to go to the Police about there being stolen goods in the shop. Plus, Peter has either been drunk or suffering withdrawal most of the time since Tina's death so he's not exactly thinking straight.
Plus Rob has an alibi - Peter has no reason to distrust Tracey saying they were together the whole time, especially as Deardre is backing them up.
Originally Posted by kitkat1971:
“Is it so obvious? As far as mst people (including Peter) are concerned Rob and Tina had very little to do with each other and he had no real motive. Only Rob and the audience know she threatened to go to the Police about there being stolen goods in the shop. Plus, Peter has either been drunk or suffering withdrawal most of the time since Tina's death so he's not exactly thinking straight.”
“Is it so obvious? As far as mst people (including Peter) are concerned Rob and Tina had very little to do with each other and he had no real motive. Only Rob and the audience know she threatened to go to the Police about there being stolen goods in the shop. Plus, Peter has either been drunk or suffering withdrawal most of the time since Tina's death so he's not exactly thinking straight.”
Was Tina the only person who knew there were stolen goods in the shop?
Does anyone think she really would have went to the police about that, with her leaving and all?
Originally Posted by QuidditchBabe:
“Was Tina the only person who knew there were stolen goods in the shop?
Does anyone think she really would have went to the police about that, with her leaving and all?”
“Was Tina the only person who knew there were stolen goods in the shop?
Does anyone think she really would have went to the police about that, with her leaving and all?”
Funny how Tony seems to have lost all interest in the shop!!!!!!
lol its only obvious to viewers if you ask me... Character wise it's already been said Rob had no motive, ok he's acting weird but so would you if you was with Tracey luv...lol
Peter's too busy with his self pity to think about who could have killed Tina. His thoughts are consumed by how much he's lost - Carla, the baby, Simon, etc - to consider Tina. It's like as Ken said, Peter considers himself a victim so his mind is centered around his own problems instead of who the real murderer is.
Originally Posted by QuidditchBabe:
“Was Tina the only person who knew there were stolen goods in the shop?
Does anyone think she really would have went to the police about that, with her leaving and all?”
“Was Tina the only person who knew there were stolen goods in the shop?
Does anyone think she really would have went to the police about that, with her leaving and all?”
She was the only person that saw that dodgy delivery and was threatened by Rob abd Tony when she pretended to take the photograph and as far as I'm aware she didn't tell anybody about it.
It's a good question in fact. Weren't traces of Tina's blood found in the outhouse of Ken's house? Police informed Peter of this when they were questioning him : he knows that he is not the killer and surely he would suspect either Tracy or Rob.
Originally Posted by tullochs:
“Why hasn't Peter figured out it was Rob who killed Tina!”
“Why hasn't Peter figured out it was Rob who killed Tina!”
Because, like most of the country, he's more interested in who killed Lucy.
Has the OP answered his own question yet? "It's so Obvious!"
It's obvious to us viewers - We SAW it happen!! But why should Peter realise it was Rob??
It's obvious to us viewers - We SAW it happen!! But why should Peter realise it was Rob??
Originally Posted by spunger:
“Why is it so obvious?
Rob had no strong motive to kill her that Peter would have known about.”
“Why is it so obvious?
Rob had no strong motive to kill her that Peter would have known about.”
I agree. Peter might suspect Rob if, for example, they were both having an affair with her or if Tina had some sort of major issue with Tracy before hand, but Rob didn't really have a motive (that thing about the stolen merchandise seemed pretty lightweight), so I don't think it's that obvious that Rob is the killer. I think Rob's behaviour as they were planning the funeral and the instances of him getting majorly upset were suspicious, but I think it would be more likely that Carla or Tracy notice those things than Peter.
Originally Posted by summer_ste:
“Because, like most of the country, he's more interested in who killed Lucy.”
“Because, like most of the country, he's more interested in who killed Lucy.”
Who's lucy? I must have missed that episode.
Why hasn't anyone found that bright blue shopping bag which also has the murder weapon in it? Rob left it under a bridge near the canal, surely someone would have found it by now. Or will it be Ken and Eccles that find it, Eccles is living on borrowed time if you ask me, the dog has already sniffed out a charm bracelet
Originally Posted by scone:
“Why hasn't anyone found that bright blue shopping bag which also has the murder weapon in it? Rob left it under a bridge near the canal, surely someone would have found it by now. Or will it be Ken and Eccles that find it, Eccles is living on borrowed time if you ask me, the dog has already sniffed out a charm bracelet”
“Why hasn't anyone found that bright blue shopping bag which also has the murder weapon in it? Rob left it under a bridge near the canal, surely someone would have found it by now. Or will it be Ken and Eccles that find it, Eccles is living on borrowed time if you ask me, the dog has already sniffed out a charm bracelet”
I'm with the Ken and Eccles theory. If the police don't solve the murder, then it has to be Sherlock Barlow and his wonderdog. Elementary - dear viewers.
PS As for Peter, he's got enough to do by changing his personality as the script requires it. Self-pitying for his cell-mate and Sir Kenneth and then uncontrollable, shaking alcoholic as soon as I'm Jimbo so I am appeared. He just hasn't had the time to think who the murder might actually be!
Originally Posted by jsmith99:
“Who's lucy? I must have missed that episode.”
“Who's lucy? I must have missed that episode.”
Lucy is a character in EastEnders who got killed off in a who did it mystery.
Originally Posted by Eurostar:
“It's a good question in fact. Weren't traces of Tina's blood found in the outhouse of Ken's house? Police informed Peter of this when they were questioning him : he knows that he is not the killer and surely he would suspect either Tracy or Rob.”
“It's a good question in fact. Weren't traces of Tina's blood found in the outhouse of Ken's house? Police informed Peter of this when they were questioning him : he knows that he is not the killer and surely he would suspect either Tracy or Rob.”
I agree with this. It doesn't matter who you are or how messed up you are with alcohol or/and self-pity, if you are accused and being charged with a murder that you know you didn't commit you would be focusing on that and on guessing who the killer might be. With the charm bracelet and the blood being found there he would think it's either someone close to home who killed Tina (narrowing it down to Rob and Tracy) or that someone's trying to frame him (narrowing it down to Rob, given the fact that they loathe eachother anyway)
1 of 2
