|
||||||||
Lucy Beale - I'm confused |
![]() |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|
#1 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: I'm NOT doormouse1 !!
Posts: 1,916
|
Lucy Beale - I'm confused
I don't know if I've missed some episodes or something, but it was Bobby who killed Lucy wasn't it? Or is no one sure now?
|
|
|
|
|
Please sign in or register to remove this advertisement.
|
|
|
#2 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Hogwarts
Posts: 13,486
|
It is Bobby but only the Beales plus Sharon and Liam know this
|
|
|
|
|
#3 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: I'm NOT doormouse1 !!
Posts: 1,916
|
Quote:
It is Bobby but only the Beales plus Sharon and Liam know this
|
|
|
|
|
|
#4 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Hogwarts
Posts: 13,486
|
Quote:
Thanks, but I've read in other threads people discussing who could have killed her! eg., possibly Lola. Why would people be discussing her possible murderer when we're all supposed to know it was Bobby?
|
|
|
|
|
#5 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: I'm NOT doormouse1 !!
Posts: 1,916
|
Quote:
I think people might still be theorising that there could be a further twist in the tale and that someone killed Lucy in between her row with Bobby and Jane finding her. Personally, I thnk would be rather cheeky of the production team to turn around and say 'actually we've been pulling your leg, Bob didnt do it'. Plus the outrage from those who placed bets on other characters, only to lose them and then turn out t be right, same with those who bet on Bob
|
|
|
|
|
|
#6 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Nottingham
Posts: 13,749
|
I'm still waiting for Special Agent Dale Cooper to show up
|
|
|
|
|
#7 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 23,467
|
Quote:
Thanks, but I've read in other threads people discussing who could have killed her! eg., possibly Lola. Why would people be discussing her possible murderer when we're all supposed to know it was Bobby?
They also seem to like the idea of there being a final twist. However, they said right from the beginning that we would be told the killer at the Anniversary and we were. I see no reason to doubt the truth as explicitly told by Jane even if we didn't see it all on screen. |
|
|
|
|
|
#8 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 12,992
|
Speaking of bets, does anyone else remember the competition on the official EE website in which the winner, who had successfully guessed Lucy's killer, would receive a tour of the set? Was that swept under the carpet? IIRC, you were allowed to type any answer into the box so someone could have correctly said Bobby but even if the winner wasn't from DS, I assume the EE PR team/DTC would have posted a photo of the winner on set or something which would have been mentioned on here.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#9 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 710
|
i'm conused why she was killed off in the first place, her and kathy could have been great.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#10 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: May 2013
Posts: 8,317
|
Does Lauren not know
|
|
|
|
|
|
#11 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Hogwarts
Posts: 13,486
|
Quote:
Speaking of bets, does anyone else remember the competition on the official EE website in which the winner, who had successfully guessed Lucy's killer, would receive a tour of the set? Was that swept under the carpet? IIRC, you were allowed to type any answer into the box so someone could have correctly said Bobby but even if the winner wasn't from DS, I assume the EE PR team/DTC would have posted a photo of the winner on set or something which would have been mentioned on here.
|
|
|
|
|
#12 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Hogwarts
Posts: 13,486
|
Quote:
Some people seem to be in denial about it simply because they didn't like the answer and what it has done to the Beales. They are using certain holes, such as not actually seeing him do it, their belief that a 10 year old boy couldn't hit her hard enough to kill, Jane wouldn't be able to move the body by herself, how did nobody from the party see anything as evidence that there is more to it and somebody else could have entered the house and finished her off after Bobby hit her.
They also seem to like the idea of there being a final twist. However, they said right from the beginning that we would be told the killer at the Anniversary and we were. I see no reason to doubt the truth as explicitly told by Jane even if we didn't see it all on screen. Mind you, the BBC did say that the person Emma met was one of the official suspects and Bobby wasn't in that list so I guess anything is possible, but it would be awful if they changed their mind from Bobby. |
|
|
|
|
#13 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 23,467
|
Quote:
Speaking of bets, does anyone else remember the competition on the official EE website in which the winner, who had successfully guessed Lucy's killer, would receive a tour of the set? Was that swept under the carpet? IIRC, you were allowed to type any answer into the box so someone could have correctly said Bobby but even if the winner wasn't from DS, I assume the EE PR team/DTC would have posted a photo of the winner on set or something which would have been mentioned on here.
So, it is possible, as IanMandy said, that if they closed it warly, say last May, nobody had mentioned him. Otherwise, do we know they would have released a photo or press release about it? I know of people that have done set visits to doctor Who, Casualty and Holby city and there was no publicity about that. Even if the BBC wanted to, the person could so no for their own privacy reasons. I don't think I'd want my name or photo printed if I were to win such a thing. |
|
|
|
|
|
#14 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Dec 2014
Posts: 648
|
Quote:
I agree with the top bit, I'm still not wholly comfortable with Bobby being the killer so it does make sense why people would hope others are behind it. As you say, we would be told in February and it happened and really hope they don't change it now.
Mind you, the BBC did say that the person Emma met was one of the official suspects and Bobby wasn't in that list so I guess anything is possible, but it would be awful if they changed their mind from Bobby. I think it highly, highly unlikely that they change the killer now for it not to be Bobby, particularly given the bets etc but not impossible. As you say, we were completely misled with the suspect list as we'd previously been told that whoever did it was on that list and Bobby wasn't. I think a lot of people have questioned the injuries Lucy sustained prior to Bobby a lot more than any intervention between Bobby attacking Lucy and Jane arriving on the scene. |
|
|
|
|
|
#15 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Aug 2013
Posts: 68
|
I voted for Bobby (didn't win the tour) and so I am sure lots of others did. It was quite obvious to me who it was by the time the live show came around.
The BBC posted photos of some of the winners on the set tour in April on the EastEnders Facebook page https://www.facebook.com/eastenders/...type=3&theater |
|
|
|
|
#16 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 23,467
|
Quote:
I agree with the top bit, I'm still not wholly comfortable with Bobby being the killer so it does make sense why people would hope others are behind it. As you say, we would be told in February and it happened and really hope they don't change it now.
Mind you, the BBC did say that the person Emma met was one of the official suspects and Bobby wasn't in that list so I guess anything is possible, but it would be awful if they changed their mind from Bobby. Regardless of whether I think Bobby being the killer was a good resolution or not (actually I do but I promise i would feel the same about changing it even if i hadn't) I feel it would be a total betrayal of the investment i as a viewer placed in the 10 month whodunit. I was told it would be 10 months at the start, I watched on that basis, got excited for the Anniversary reveal. To then be told months or even years later that it had been a ruse, a trick, another 'red herring' would not be inventive to me, it would be a slap in the face for the time and emotions i spent on it from April 2014 to February 2015. I would NEVER trust them re a murder, or whodunit ever again. Why would I? If they did that with Lkucy, why couldn't they now turn round and say Stacey hallucinate killing Archie and it was actually somebody else, or Carl wasn't really dead, somebody snuck in to finish him off when Ronnie had her back turned. Etc, etc, etc. If i lose trust in the narrative structure of a Soap to that extent, i see no value to me in watching it so would stop, despite having stuck with it through thick and thin since 1985. As i said earlier, they announced in Feb 2014 that Lucy would be killed, it would lead to a long whodunit with the culprit being revealed at the Anniversary and that is what happened. Bets were laid and paid out on that basis. Bobby being named as the killer was even announced on the News for crying out loud. I don't see how they can possibly go back on that. |
|
|
|
|
|
#17 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 23,467
|
Quote:
I voted for Bobby (didn't win the tour) and so I am sure lots of others did. It was quite obvious to me who it was by the time the live show came around.
The BBC posted photos of some of the winners on the set tour in April on the EastEnders Facebook page https://www.facebook.com/eastenders/...type=3&theater Thank you for the info and sorry you didn't get the tour. Well done for calling Bobby early though. As i mentioned, i started seriously considering him late December when Jane started acting suspiciously and was fairly sure by the beginning of live week. If Jane was covering for somebody, he was the only candidate that made sense. I am quite proud that i guessed Lauren was Max's attacker back in 2008. Called it the night the episode transmitted. |
|
|
|
|
|
#18 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Hogwarts
Posts: 13,486
|
Quote:
I can only speak for myself but i would utterly lose faith in the show if they changed it now, or at any point in the future. I'm already on the cusp over Kathy coming back - just giving it the benefit of the doubt until I hear the full explanation.
Regardless of whether I think Bobby being the killer was a good resolution or not (actually I do but I promise i would feel the same about changing it even if i hadn't) I feel it would be a total betrayal of the investment i as a viewer placed in the 10 month whodunit. I was told it would be 10 months at the start, I watched on that basis, got excited for the Anniversary reveal. To then be told months or even years later that it had been a ruse, a trick, another 'red herring' would not be inventive to me, it would be a slap in the face for the time and emotions i spent on it from April 2014 to February 2015. I would NEVER trust them re a murder, or whodunit ever again. Why would I? If they did that with Lkucy, why couldn't they now turn round and say Stacey hallucinate killing Archie and it was actually somebody else, or Carl wasn't really dead, somebody snuck in to finish him off when Ronnie had her back turned. Etc, etc, etc. If i lose trust in the narrative structure of a Soap to that extent, i see no value to me in watching it so would stop, despite having stuck with it through thick and thin since 1985. As i said earlier, they announced in Feb 2014 that Lucy would be killed, it would lead to a long whodunit with the culprit being revealed at the Anniversary and that is what happened. Bets were laid and paid out on that basis. Bobby being named as the killer was even announced on the News for crying out loud. I don't see how they can possibly go back on that. I would be the same tbh if Bobby being the killer would pass onto someone else- it could happen as it did with the suspect list when the BBC confirmed the list of suspects and Bobby wasn't included. It would be an awful moment for the show though. As you say people would lose faith and the credibility of the show would be damaged. I think the fact people are already speculating that there could be a different killer just shows DTC does rely a lot on sensationalism which costs the show's credibility |
|
|
|
|
#19 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Dec 2014
Posts: 648
|
Quote:
I can only speak for myself but i would utterly lose faith in the show if they changed it now, or at any point in the future. I'm already on the cusp over Kathy coming back - just giving it the benefit of the doubt until I hear the full explanation.
Regardless of whether I think Bobby being the killer was a good resolution or not (actually I do but I promise i would feel the same about changing it even if i hadn't) I feel it would be a total betrayal of the investment i as a viewer placed in the 10 month whodunit. I was told it would be 10 months at the start, I watched on that basis, got excited for the Anniversary reveal. To then be told months or even years later that it had been a ruse, a trick, another 'red herring' would not be inventive to me, it would be a slap in the face for the time and emotions i spent on it from April 2014 to February 2015. I would NEVER trust them re a murder, or whodunit ever again. Why would I? If they did that with Lkucy, why couldn't they now turn round and say Stacey hallucinate killing Archie and it was actually somebody else, or Carl wasn't really dead, somebody snuck in to finish him off when Ronnie had her back turned. Etc, etc, etc. If i lose trust in the narrative structure of a Soap to that extent, i see no value to me in watching it so would stop, despite having stuck with it through thick and thin since 1985. As i said earlier, they announced in Feb 2014 that Lucy would be killed, it would lead to a long whodunit with the culprit being revealed at the Anniversary and that is what happened. Bets were laid and paid out on that basis. Bobby being named as the killer was even announced on the News for crying out loud. I don't see how they can possibly go back on that. I do feel that there could be some final twist on it but that is more likely to be something along the lines of Bobby having known the whole time that he did it and having been playing everyone. I really wish they would stop the continual reveals and arrests though and draw some type of closure to that part of it. |
|
|
|
|
|
#20 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 23,467
|
Quote:
I didn't think Bobby was the best choice but he definitely wasn't the worst outcome they could have chosen and it being him added drama with Jane and the cover up. Don't necessarily think that people don't want it to be Bobby because of the ruination of the Beales as essentially whether or not it was someone else the damage has already been done to the Beales by operation cover up. What they've done with everyone gradually finding out since and the wrongful arrest has been worse in my opinion.
I think it highly, highly unlikely that they change the killer now for it not to be Bobby, particularly given the bets etc but not impossible. As you say, we were completely misled with the suspect list as we'd previously been told that whoever did it was on that list and Bobby wasn't. I think a lot of people have questioned the injuries Lucy sustained prior to Bobby a lot more than any intervention between Bobby attacking Lucy and Jane arriving on the scene. The suspect lists was only ever printed in Soap mags so quite a specialist interest. Also, from memory, i'mm not sure they specifically said that those people we saw when Emma collapsed were the final suspect list, just that the events of that episode would discount a lot of suspects - which they did due to things like Aleks being seen to be on another call when Emma was contacting the 'killer'. Also, i'm not sure Emma meeting Jane rather than Bobby is a big a mislead as many do. Jane was seriously involved. She might not have struck the killer blow but she was in it up to her neck and she was the only person that actually knew the truth so in that respect, if you guessed it was her, the clues worked. Most of the theories I've seen about there being a final twist seem to concentrate on Max having been headed in the direction of the house and Jane being unable to move the body by herself. I do agree that the previous blows are more suspect but i guess what we must be supposed to assume is that whilst they might have weakened her, she did not die until Bobby hit her. He therefore struck the final, killer blow. QED - he is the killer rather than Denise or Abi and if it were otherwise, it would have been found in the Post Mortem. My final point re any change is any misdirection in the run up to he reveal was just that, misdirection, re herrings printed only where soap fans interested in the whodunit and following articles would see it. They were just the same as the countless red herrings we saw on screen with, for example, Jay burying her belongings. In February we were explicitly told what had happened, including it being reported on the National News as a fact. Which marks a definitive, unchangeable end to it. Sorry, gone on a bit there. |
|
|
|
|
|
#21 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 23,467
|
Quote:
I can see how Bobby being the killer makes sense in terms of Jane covering for him etc (I'm not so confident she would have done that to Cindy or even Peter) and the storyline has been great and kudos to DTC for taking a risk- the only problem I have is that it does still strike me as implausible. Having said that I am warming to the idea and think it could be a decent foundation of stories for a while.
I would be the same tbh if Bobby being the killer would pass onto someone else- it could happen as it did with the suspect list when the BBC confirmed the list of suspects and Bobby wasn't included. It would be an awful moment for the show though. As you say people would lose faith and the credibility of the show would be damaged. I think the fact people are already speculating that there could be a different killer just shows DTC does rely a lot on sensationalism which costs the show's credibility By which i mean, Kathy coming back from the dead has been floated as an idea, a wish for years and the majority of posters that i've seen have had the attitude that whilst killing her off was a mistake, it happened, there is no plausible way of reversing it and no EP in their right mind would do it. Those posters that suggested ways were dismissed or even mocked. I admit i've done it, pooh,poohing all the possible ways round it and pointing out in details why she was very different to Den when he was used as a precedent. But now, an EP has done it. Kathy is back, although we still don't know how. So i think there is now a feeling that if they can do that, reverse that mistake 10 years later, then they can do anything - reverse anything a future EP considers to have been a mistake. And that does damage the credibility of the show as you can't totally trust anything - even something as definitive seeming as a death (even if off screen) or the reveal of a murder mystery. This is why, the actual explanation of Kathy's survival is crucial. If it is something plausible, something I've never thought of and i haven't seen suggested here (and it might be) then i'll eat my hat and accept it. However if it is something i consider to be totally out of character for Kathy (willingly letting her children believe she was dead) or unrealistic for what would actually happen (a child not being put into witness protection with their mother) then I'll maintain the stand i always took that bringing her back would be a shark jumping moment which destroys the credibility of the show and would orobably stop me watching. The same would now be true of Bobby not being the killer due to all the things I've said above and also, just why would Jane lie? What or who could be more important than Bobby that she'd lie to protect their involvement? |
|
|
|
|
|
#22 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 12,992
|
Quote:
I voted for Bobby (didn't win the tour) and so I am sure lots of others did. It was quite obvious to me who it was by the time the live show came around.
The BBC posted photos of some of the winners on the set tour in April on the EastEnders Facebook page https://www.facebook.com/eastenders/...type=3&theater |
|
|
|
|
|
#23 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Dec 2014
Posts: 648
|
Quote:
The same would now be true of Bobby not being the killer due to all the things I've said above and also, just why would Jane lie? What or who could be more important than Bobby that she'd lie to protect their involvement? Who knows though. Judging by the Kathy storyline anything is technically possible! I completely agree with what you say about Kathy KitKat. I think it was a mistake to kill her off in the first place, but bringing her back is completely incredulous unless they do something phenomenal to explain it, and in that case I'll also eat my hat! |
|
|
|
|
|
#24 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: I'm NOT doormouse1 !!
Posts: 1,916
|
Quote:
I really don't think it could ever be a case that Jane made the Bobby story up to protect someone else. I think that in the highly unlikely event that they did change the killer it would be on the basis that Jane genuinely thought that it was Bobby and moved the body on that premise but that she'd been incorrect in that presumption. Unless you had the completely unlikely scenario that Jane made up the Bobby storyline to cover for herself but I really couldn't see that happening.
Who knows though. Judging by the Kathy storyline anything is technically possible! I completely agree with what you say about Kathy KitKat. I think it was a mistake to kill her off in the first place, but bringing her back is completely incredulous unless they do something phenomenal to explain it, and in that case I'll also eat my hat! Wasn't he abducted by aliens or something?
|
|
|
|
|
|
#25 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 12,992
|
Quote:
The same would now be true of Bobby not being the killer due to all the things I've said above and also, just why would Jane lie? What or who could be more important than Bobby that she'd lie to protect their involvement? Jane considers even fitting up Bobby (but in the knowledge that people will be willing to protect him) in order to protect Ian from the horrible truth that he killed his own daughter; "the one". Ian's drunkenness would explain why Jane was around Masood's that night, in order to gain respite from Ian. Bobby's words "she started it" are still true but it was Ian, rather than Bobby that shut her up.
|
|
|
|
![]() |
|
|
All times are GMT. The time now is 14:17.




Wasn't he abducted by aliens or something?
Jane considers even fitting up Bobby (but in the knowledge that people will be willing to protect him) in order to protect Ian from the horrible truth that he killed his own daughter; "the one". Ian's drunkenness would explain why Jane was around Masood's that night, in order to gain respite from Ian. Bobby's words "she started it" are still true but it was Ian, rather than Bobby that shut her up.