Who Killed Lucy? EE Live Week – Part 2

Another tense episode done and another classic live duff-duff – BUT FIRST, we need to deal with last night’s cliffhanger…

As predicted (by me) – Abi almost immediately turned round and said “What the Wellard are you on about, dad?”

There is more to explore with Abi – she’s becoming quite sinister – but also with Max, who seems to have spent the last ten months believing his youngest killed Lucy.

I’m going to park Jane and the card to one side for a moment, and just think about a few of the other elements of tonight’s episode.

First up Phil… what on Earth is going on there? What has he discovered that he needs to tell Ian about on his wedding day? For fear of things being thrown at me… are we going to find something out about Kathy?

Could it be that she’s not really dead? I could fill a whole blog post on this, so I’m going to resist, and just ask – what else do Ian and Phil have in common that would be that urgent?

Secondly Stacey and Kat – part of me wants to believe that Jessie Wallace has been taking the method acting too far and isn’t actually supposed to be that drunk.

The production team just said “Well, we’ll have to make Kat drunk for the week – Jessie’ll never get through it otherwise.”

I think I missed a bit, but why is Stacey suddenly gathering the troops – other than to set up the remake of the opening of the very first episode tomorrow?

And Martin’s “I’ve pulled.” – the whiff of Stacey Fowler is getting stronger.

Thirdly, Jo Joyner. Poor Jo Joyner. Meme’s going round the internet already of the moment she realised she said Adam and not Ian. Bless, her, she is a touch out of practice – especially as she only seems to be appearing in the live scenes.

Which leads to my new theory that the only reason for the live episodes in the first place was because Jo Joyner couldn’t commit to the weeks spent filming it and insisted they did live episodes. (And quite right too, she did miss out on the last live episode).

Fourthly (I don’t know how high these numbers are going to get) – It seems that while Jo Joyner is merrily messing up lines, the production team didn’t trust Eliot Carrington (Bobby Beale) or June Brown (Dot Branning) to go live, with all of their scenes being pre-recorded.

And while we’re on Dot – and partly to save going up another number – why is she telling everyone she killed Nick? Not exactly, she didn’t ring an ambulance, and instead let Jesus choose. Jesus killed Nick – now there’s a storyline that’s never been done in a soap before.

If insurance companies can use ‘act of god’ in a legal context, why can’t Dot?

And lastly (unless I think of anything else) – that cliffhanger. Peter accusing Ian and Jane – completely forgetting that Jane wasn’t living in the house at the time.

Let’s explore Jane’s actions. They can be interpreted one of two ways – either she thinks Ian did it and she wants to escape, or she’s scared of being rumbled and wants to escape.

Either way, Jane wants to escape – and with Bobby.

Once she got to the altar, the first thing she said to Ian was “Where’s Peter?” – This fits in with my theory that Peter did it and she’s covering for him. It also fits in with Jane wanting to talk to Peter to tell him what his dad did.

She then gets cold feet mid-way during her vows – gets a bit of water – and then continues on and looked genuinely ecstatic that she’d married him. If she thought he murdered Lucy, but was stalling for time, she wouldn’t look that happy.

No, I’m ruling Jane suspecting Ian out.

Jane scarpers the Vic during the speeches – the lights on the train flicker in the same way they did the last time we saw Lucy alive – and Dot’s wonderful monologue on murder begins.

Dot talks about two things – one a wicked thing does not a wicked person make, and two, if someone we love does something wicked what do we do? If Jane had discovered Peter had done something, what would she do?

Jane spirits Bobby away with Masood’s help, and gets him to get his stuff. He’s going to Masood’s. Why would they go to Masood’s if she’s running away from a murderer? Why not leave town completely?

Are they going to stay there for a night before fleeing – or is she just sending Bobby, because she fears that she might be taken somewhere else? Walked away in cuffs? Or, perhaps, is she covering… for Bobby, and wants to get him out of harm’s way?

Then there’s that last scene – Peter drags Cindy over to the house just as Jane is about to tell Ian something.

So… it wasn’t Peter. Or at least if it was him, he’s not aware that it was his actions that caused Lucy’s death (my original theory).

Tomorrow’s episode will begin with a lot of flustering and dithering while they all try to work out what’s going on – then there’ll be the distraction of the discovery of Nick’s body.

We’ll get even more distractions, it will be one of the most agonizing hours of television before finally at the end of the episode we – and Ian – learn the truth.

The truth being that Peter or Cindy or Bobby killed Lucy and that Jane OR Denise – don’t forget she was living there at the time – covered it up.

I still believe that Peter inadvertently caused her death, that Jane has covered it up for him, and that Peter will elope with Lauren, none the wiser of Ian and Jane’s decision to protect him.

A full hour and a half of it tomorrow – but at least you won’t have to put up with any more wild speculation from me.

Oh, and one final thing “Everywhere I go is Pooh.” Brilliant.


Who Killed Lucy? My final theory

Lauren knows what happened to Lucy.

Well, catch up love, I’ve known for weeks. I worked it out here and here.

But have we worked out the same thing?

I reckon it was Peter, covered up by Jane – for reasons explored in more depth in the previous posts. Or at least I did. Do I still reckon that?

It appears that a phone number is enough to help Lauren work out what Emma knew – assuming that is, that Lauren has worked out the same thing.

But was it just a phone number? As well as a series of numbers, there was also a slightly unclear scribble. Was is SOC? 80C? SOO? 800?

My money is on S.O.C – scene of crime, and the phone number? It was a London landline number, a Walford landline number if you take a careful look at some of the numbers dotted around the Square (on the Arches for example)

Does this suggest a the scene of the crime was a Walford based location? I’d say it would have to be, I can’t see one of the most iconic deaths in the show not happening on the Square.

But it was also a number that Lauren recognized, almost immediately.

In the world of mobile phones, how many landline numbers do you know off the top of your head? I know mine. I know my mum’s. I know my granddad’s. I know my work number. I know two local taxi numbers.

So, I think we can narrow it down to the Branning’s, Beale’s the restaurant where Lauren works, and probably the Beale house, where her husband-to-be and best friend Lucy both lived.

That doesn’t really change much. I’d kind of figured it out was a Branning or a Beale.

Has Lauren given us any clues? Let’s assume that Jacqueline Jossa didn’t know who killed Lucy during the filming of this week’s episodes. We know that they were filmed before Christmas and we know that none of the cast found out until January.

So we can rule out any shifty eye movements and tense shuffling from Lauren as clues. We need to look at the writing, and not necessarily the words, but the actions behind them. Daran Little the writer of Friday’s episode has stated he doesn’t know who killed Lucy, so Lauren’s choice of words (ie, Daran’s) are another red herring.

But Lauren telling Peter she can’t marry him, and writing ‘I know what happened to Lucy’ in Ian and Jane’s wedding card were actions that would have been story lined to happen by the people who DO know who killed Lucy.

Telling Peter she can’t marry him is probably not indicative of Peter’s guilt, but more that if Lauren knows who killed Lucy, can she live with the secret and marry him? Unlikely.

But writing in Ian and Jane’s wedding card… is that a message to Ian to finally let him know… or is it a threat to either Ian or Jane?

Lauren’s got form of revealing things indirectly. She found out about Max and Stacey and played a video. She found out about Stacey murdering Archie and recorded the confession, ready to hand it over.

So I’m convinced she’s threatening either Ian or Jane, revealing that she knows what they did.

I refuse to believe that Ian Beale will be revealed to be a murderer, partly because it potentially could ruin the character irreparably, and because I don’t think he can have lasted the last ten months lying like that (Ian’s a bad liar). Also, Ian’s a man on the edge of a nervous breakdown, this would have pushed him into La-La land.

So it must be Jane, then. Lauren thinks Jane did it.

And that means that I’m at the same point I was when I thought that Emma thought that Jane did it.

Everything points to Jane, and I think the anniversary episode on the 19th February will end with the audience believing it to be Jane. Then the flashback episode will reveal she’s been covering for someone.

And who would she cover for? Peter or Bobby. Maybe at a push Cindy.

The show will want the biggest dramatic impact possible in it’s biggest episode yet. That has to mean it’s the two people either side of Ian at the altar who are implicated.

Jane is covering for Peter.

Who Killed Lucy? I’m still on the case.

A couple of weeks ago, I reviewed all the clues in the Lucy Beale case and worked out that Peter Beale lashed out at Lucy causing a fatal injury that he hitherto is unaware of. Jane Beale witnessed it and covered it up. You can read that here

But now we’ve had another clue…

Tonight at the National Television Awards the last thing Lucy heard – it was her own music box.

And suddenly things are very sinister. The music box was put under the tree for Beth at Christmas – but who by? And why? Either somebody knows who it is and is taunting them, or it was an innocent present.

Who reacted? And how did they react? Most of them spooked, including Jane.

But she said nothing until she had a heart to heart with Lauren, giving herself an alibi at the same time.

Forget it being unwrapped, though. Think about Lucy hearing it. Who would possibly have access to the music box, for it to have been the last thing she heard? And why?

And how did it get back in the house? Remember Ian took it to the charity shop after she died. Either someone took it from the house, killed her, and then took it back again… or she died at home.

That means it’s Ian, Peter, Bobby, Cindy or Denise. At a stretch Jane would also have access to the house. We know that Lauren was also close to the house.

Jane didn’t see Lauren from the Masood’s house – it isn’t possible because of the location of the houses. Jane’s car also wasn’t outside where it was previously parked.

So, none of them really have an alibi. Cindy did go and look for Ian at the restaurant but didn’t find him. Ian was with Rainie but we don’t know what time he got back. Denise was with Libby, but again we don’t know what time she got back, and we don’t know what time Lucy died.

Jane, Bobby, Lauren and Peter don’t have alibis at all.

The Reveal

I still think part of the key to figuring out whodunit is working out how it will be revealed and who to.

Either someone finds out, or someone confesses.

Lauren seems to be the only one (apart from me) on the case at the moment. This both lends and removes support to it being a Branning. If we’re seeing it through the eyes of Lauren, then it makes perfect sense to be a Branning, but if it doesn’t involve the Beale’s then the reveal will feel a little lackluster.

So if someone finds out who did it, then I think they have to reveal it to the Beales and I don’t think Lauren would dob Max or Abi in it, without first demanding an explanation.

So if someone confesses instead… who would that be? Surely, it can only be Jane at the altar? It makes perfect dramatic sense, surely?

Or maybe. Lauren does find out who it is… and she finds out it’s Jane?

Jane is definitely involved. I don’t want her to have done it, but I can’t for a second believe she’s not involved.

I’m still putting money on Peter with Jane covering it up.

BEDM14: What’s The Problem?

Yesterday I posted a rather flippant post comparing Facebook and Twitter to having kids. The reason for avoiding the prompt ‘Facebook or Twitter?’ was because I feared the resulting blog would end in a diatribe not against Facebook, but more the people that use it.

I’m still not going to go into it, I don’t want to upset anyone just to make an interesting blog. There’s plenty about what people do on Facebook that annoys me, but to be honest it probably says more about me, than it does about them. I could go on and on and on about some of the things that people do and their response would most likely be: What’s the problem?

That’s what this blog is about. It’s my ‘What’s the Problem?’ to something that I recently read in the latest issue of Attitude magazine.

It was an opinion piece by Iain Dale, there isn’t an online version that I can find, so you’ll have to buy a copy of the magazine to read his full article (But why wouldn’t you? There’s a lovely picture of Ben Hardy aka Peter Beale off of EastEnders on the cover).

It is an opinion piece, and I can’t stress that enough, because if it’s his opinion, then that’s fine. He’s entitled to it, but I’m entitled to disagree. It was subtitled Where are the ‘normal’ gay people on TV?

Dale makes a lot of really good points. The article in itself is questioning why sexuality is used as an adjective, as if it’s something that defines a person. He notes that he was described in The Observer as ‘Iain Dale, the gay Conservative candidate’.

Conservative candidate should be a suitable enough label for him – unless the article in itself (Dale doesn’t mention what the article was about) was specifically around gay issues, in which case the label of gay would add context to the article.

There are two sections of his piece that I object to.

Even EastEnders, the show which broke new ground in the late 1980s by screening the first fay kiss fell for the gay stereotype ‘Muscle Mary’ character, Christian

And then later:

One of the few places on TV where you find completely ordinary gay people is in the news. I say ordinary – they are generally extraordinary people, but the thing they have in common is that most people wouldn’t even know they are gay

There are many kinds of homophobia in this world, and the one we all object to is heterosexuals discriminating against homosexuals simply for the fact that they are homosexual.

What troubles me is when homosexuals discriminate against other homosexuals.

If I was a young gay boy reading a copy of Attitude Magazine for the first time, I would be troubled by Dale’s opinion piece. His unconsidered us of the word ‘normal’ is troubling.

What he is linking normal to is people not being able to tell that they are gay. What he is linking normal, whether he intends to or not, is being able to pass as straight.

What he’s actually saying is that these people – and he lists several examples – are not camp.

The people he lists, among them are Clare Balding, Evan Davis and Paddy O’Connell are people that don’t make you ‘automatically think ‘gay’’ but then he goes onto qualify that in O’Connell’s case he would ‘make an exception but only when he’s presenting the Eurovision semis’

Dale wants less camp people on TV. And that’s ok. But it’s not ok to infer that these people are not normal, or that they don’t exist.

Christian Clarke from EastEnders may well be a Muscle Mary stereotype. But these people exist. They deserve a place on our television screens.

I’m not exactly butch – I have a slight wiggle when I walk, and I know my way around a well-timed eyebrow raise – so Iain Dale’s article hits home slightly.

I recently was speaking to a chap on Grindr. Lovely guy, liked him quite a lot, but he told me he didn’t like camp guys. This led to a discussion in my office among a couple of them, where we agreed that on the scale, I’m probably a six – that means I’m not whole row of tents, but I’m more than just a one person pop-up.

I worried over meeting him, I thought he would immediately take offence if I spoke with a slightly higher voice than he, or if I ordered vodka tonic instead of a beer.

I probably shouldn’t have been worried, he was camper than me, not by much, but if I’m a six, then he was a seven – that doesn’t bother me. What does bother me is that I did get worried about it. I worried about changing who I am.

It’s 2014. We shouldn’t have to worry about hiding ourselves away and trying to be ‘ordinary’ so that people don’t know we’re gay.

It’s fine to campaign for a wider representation of gay men and women in our media, but we need to stop using the word normal when we mean non-camp.

Prompt: What’s the Problem