|
||||||||
unless zoe goes down as well it was the worst story ever |
![]() |
|
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|
#1 |
|
Banned User
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 1,596
|
unless zoe goes down as well it was the worst story ever
ee really have made an arse of this their were 3 people involved and only 1 goes down - ridiculous
|
|
|
|
|
Please sign in or register to remove this advertisement.
|
|
|
#2 |
|
Banned User
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: G Wing
Posts: 332
|
Only one murderer?
|
|
|
|
|
|
#3 |
|
Banned User
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Liverpool
Posts: 1,794
|
Zoe hit him first so obviously that must of added to the murder
|
|
|
|
|
|
#4 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Scotland
Posts: 8,143
|
3 conspiritors.... what the term the police use....
aiding and abetting a crime.... |
|
|
|
|
|
#5 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 3,732
|
I think it's ridiculous Sam if get's to escape, the police know she was envolved! Also sam is one of those reoccuring characters who will probly return at some point, I bet the police will convieniently forget the part she played. Tbh the actress who played zoe is gone so how would the bring her back for that? Maybe if theres a trial or something at a later date everything would be sorted out. In the mean time its unfair Chrissie's the only one in jail!
|
|
|
|
|
|
#6 |
|
Banned User
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Justins arms
Posts: 296
|
The cops have no idea about Zoe.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#7 |
|
Banned User
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 1,596
|
sam mentioned zoe but they didnt listen
|
|
|
|
|
|
#8 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Central London
Posts: 43,722
|
Zoe did indeed hit Den. But it was an assault only.
The Police are not aware of her involvement as Chrissie has decided to do the decent thing and take the blame for it without implicating others. Bit odd about Sam as I am sure she did admit to knowing about the murder and the burial. So they could have charged her with a number of things. But then its artistic licence. |
|
|
|
|
#9 |
|
Banned User
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Liverpool
Posts: 1,794
|
they dont know but if they thought about it why would stacey give chrissie a fake alibi if zoe was nt involved in the murder
|
|
|
|
|
|
#10 |
|
Banned User
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 1,596
|
covering up a murder as well as being an accessoory is pretty big id say she'll either have to go down or be on the run
|
|
|
|
|
|
#11 |
|
Banned User
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Justins arms
Posts: 296
|
Maybe we will hear about what will happen to Stacey next week. EE have done this before made you think that was the end and then brought it back again.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#12 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Ireland
Posts: 6,522
|
When Sam was arrested on suspicion of Den's murder, she mentioned Zoe was there on the night Den was killed - correct me if I'm wrong, but if a suspected murderer links you to the scene of a murder, you will track her down and question her (even if she is livin' it up in Ibeefer)?
The numpty Walford police trundles over to the Slaters and asks to get in contact with Zoe - but are told that she can't be contacted! The police give up and hear Chrissie and Zoe were with Stacey on the night of Den's death! Now, Chrissie has been caught fessing to Jake but still Stacey and Zoe aren't even contacted for giving a murderer a fake alibi! - This storyline has had so many holes in it that I could drive a bus through it, but it has been really entertaining all the same. If Michelle Ryan had stayed on until this storyline had finished then perhaps all this would have been avoided. Plus, there has been other things that I have to ask about - like Chrissie's friend, Amanda who was a 'witness' to Den signing the Vic over to Chrissie - what about her? Isn't that illegal and wouldn't she be arrested too? |
|
|
|
|
#13 |
|
Banned User
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Liverpool
Posts: 1,794
|
Well we know it aint the ned of the storyline as Chrissie returns in december so myabe things will be cleared up then
|
|
|
|
|
|
#14 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Spain with Annie
Posts: 7,954
|
It'd be nice, but I doubt it'll ever happen. I'm still waiting for news on Stalker Sarah!
|
|
|
|
|
|
#15 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Doncaster
Posts: 968
|
well sam is ment to be going down for 4 years, but she ecsapes to brazil
|
|
|
|
|
|
#16 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Kennington, South London
Posts: 425
|
As far as I'm aware, in the case of a murder, if someone confesses to being the murderer, then that's a open and shut case. The fact that Sam played a part would be classed as 'Aiding and Abetting a Crime', 'Perversion of the Course of Justice' and 'Wilfull Criminal Damage'. Also, Sam could be charged with assault on Tracey.
With regards to Zoe, as long as Sam and Chrissie's stories corroborate each other, then as Zoe has only been mentioned in passing and not tied specifically to a physical part in the crime, the Met wouldn't go as far as an extradition, because there is no legal charge against her. You can't extradite a witness, and sub poenas are only legal within the British Realm. Technically, they don't need to bring Zoe in or deal with her hand in it, unless it is mentioned by either defendant her part in the murder. Damn having lawyer friends watch EE with you... |
|
|
|
|
|
#17 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Lincoln, England
Posts: 1,871
|
I knew that this would happen. Sam and Zoe would be ignored by the police (unless something happens later) so that Chrissie will go down. Surely Stacey will suffer as her fake alibi has had a huge effect on what happened.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#18 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Kennington, South London
Posts: 425
|
Stacey could be charged with 'Perverting the Course of Justice' but usually, with someone so young, the police wouldn't proceed with a charge of this nature, unless they were a repeat offender, had a criminal history or stood to benefit personally from the lie. Judgement is reserved on cases like this. Stacey would be seen as being young and naive, regardless of how headstrong she comes across.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#19 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Black Country lad in Yorkshire
Posts: 118,101
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by ilovedanny
well sam is ment to be going down for 4 years, but she ecsapes to brazil
|
|
|
|
|
|
#20 |
|
Banned User
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Likes: Pete, Nikki
Posts: 1,920
|
Chrisies covering it up for them...shows she did at least have some heart, but was just desperate....she knows the games up now and no matter who she gets involved, she will be going down for at least 15-20 years minimum, so really theres no point in her getting the others in trouble.
Look at it as her way of saying sorry for everything. |
|
|
|
|
|
#21 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Black Country lad in Yorkshire
Posts: 118,101
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Slushccool
As far as I'm aware, in the case of a murder, if someone confesses to being the murderer, then that's a open and shut case. The fact that Sam played a part would be classed as 'Aiding and Abetting a Crime', 'Perversion of the Course of Justice' and 'Wilfull Criminal Damage'. Also, Sam could be charged with assault on Tracey.
With regards to Zoe, as long as Sam and Chrissie's stories corroborate each other, then as Zoe has only been mentioned in passing and not tied specifically to a physical part in the crime, the Met wouldn't go as far as an extradition, because there is no legal charge against her. You can't extradite a witness, and sub poenas are only legal within the British Realm. Technically, they don't need to bring Zoe in or deal with her hand in it, unless it is mentioned by either defendant her part in the murder. Damn having lawyer friends watch EE with you... |
|
|
|
|
|
#22 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Kennington, South London
Posts: 425
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by SULLA
But they do not appear to be criminal lawyers
|
|
|
|
|
|
#23 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Essex
Posts: 11,572
|
Lacey Turner had a nasty case of gastric flu in September, so she was given a week off to recover I think, hence the "you can go and see Zoe" bit. Probably means no Stacey next week.
(Of course, if the PC plods turned up looking for Stacey, and Kat ended up telling them she had gone to see Zoe that could potentially lead to suspicions, but nothing concrete). Actually the police would not be in that much of a hurry to question Stacey as the "alibi" still stands; the CCTV does not disprove it. Chrissie admits to killing Den in the video, but she does not say when and she does not refer to Stacey. Indeed, the police may have little interest in the "alibi" now. And even if they did question her, all Stacey has to do is stick by her story (Chrissie promised Kat that she would keep Zoe and thus also Stacey, out of it, and as Stacey did not move against her, Chrissie has no reason to "lash out" or try to drag others down with her). Stacey has not changed her story, whereas Chrissie and Sam have, thus Stacey holds the advantage. It is also highly feasible that Kat would have contacted Zoe and made sure that her account corroborates with Stacey if questioned. Zoe has not been questioned because she is not in EE. Also Stacey and Zoe are cousins, not sisters, thus making it less likely for police to "join the dots". Of course, Sam is not in the clear at all. She can only be cleared of murder, the other charges would remain regardless of the CCTV or Stacey's alibi (the Mitchells belief that Stacey could "free" Sam is only half-true). Sam mentioned Zoe, yes, but she changed her story so many times her credibility was shot. It's often said that the police in Walford are not especially bright, but the real police have often been much, much dumber...the shooting of Charles De Menezes springs to mind. However I do think soaps should try to avoid stories involving the police, as it makes it difficult to sustain characters, what with all the charges etc. Stacey was notably more positive in her view of the CCTV than Kat, for reasons that have been made clear in recent episodes, and her assessment in Tuesday's episode thus far has turned out to be correct. I was glad Stacey's birthday went so well, with no sign of the Fuzz, as EE has such a tendency to make "happy" occasions into nightmares. She had a smile bigger than the Missisippi. Hmmmm...who was it who encouraged Ruby to go and see her father and thus accidentally bring down Chrissie?
|
|
|
|
|
|
#24 |
|
Banned User
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 189
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Relugus
Lacey Turner had a nasty case of gastric flu in September, so she was given a week off to recover I think, hence the "you can go and see Zoe" bit. Probably means no Stacey next week.
(Of course, if the PC plods turned up looking for Stacey, and Kat ended up telling them she had gone to see Zoe that could potentially lead to suspicions, but nothing concrete). Actually the police would not be in that much of a hurry to question Stacey as the "alibi" still stands; the CCTV does not disprove it. Chrissie admits to killing Den in the video, but she does not say when and she does not refer to Stacey. Indeed, the police may have little interest in the "alibi" now. And even if they did question her, all Stacey has to do is stick by her story (Chrissie promised Kat that she would keep Zoe and thus also Stacey, out of it, and as Stacey did not move against her, Chrissie has no reason to "lash out" or try to drag others down with her). Stacey has not changed her story, whereas Chrissie and Sam have, thus Stacey holds the advantage. It is also highly feasible that Kat would have contacted Zoe and made sure that her account corroborates with Stacey if questioned. Zoe has not been questioned because she is not in EE. Also Stacey and Zoe are cousins, not sisters, thus making it less likely for police to "join the dots". Of course, Sam is not in the clear at all. She can only be cleared of murder, the other charges would remain regardless of the CCTV or Stacey's alibi (the Mitchells belief that Stacey could "free" Sam is only half-true). Sam mentioned Zoe, yes, but she changed her story so many times her credibility was shot. It's often said that the police in Walford are not especially bright, but the real police have often been much, much dumber...the shooting of Charles De Menezes springs to mind. However I do think soaps should try to avoid stories involving the police, as it makes it difficult to sustain characters, what with all the charges etc. Stacey was notably more positive in her view of the CCTV than Kat, for reasons that have been made clear in recent episodes, and her assessment in Tuesday's episode thus far has turned out to be correct. I was glad Stacey's birthday went so well, with no sign of the Fuzz, as EE has such a tendency to make "happy" occasions into nightmares. She had a smile bigger than the Missisippi. Hmmmm...who was it who encouraged Ruby to go and see her father and thus accidentally bring down Chrissie? ![]() What a brilliant post.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#25 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Essex
Posts: 11,572
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by swelford
they dont know but if they thought about it why would stacey give chrissie a fake alibi if zoe was not involved in the murder
They did ask Stacey "why would you cover for Chrissie Watts?" They couldn't figure it out. The murder happened before Stacey fully moved in with the Slaters (correct me if I'm wrong). The police see little connection between Zoe and Stacey, if any, because they are not closely related, and they lived under the same roof very briefly. Did wonder about the "put your family through that?" remark...usual thing or perhaps they knew about Stacey's mother? |
|
|
|
![]() |
|
All times are GMT. The time now is 13:42.


