Viewers of EastEnders think killing Lucy Beale was a mistake and it should've been her twin brother Peter killed instead.
In April 2014, Ian Beale's daughter Lucy was found dead on Walford Common and for 10 months, viewers and Albert Square residents had no idea who killed the young woman.
In February 2015 it was revealed in a flashback that Lucy had been killed by her little half-brother Bobby Beale, who was just 10-years-old at the time of her murder.
The murder was covered up by Bobby's adoptive mum Jane, who moved her stepdaughter's body to cover Bobby's crime.
Although Lucy has been dead for over four years, her storyline has resurfaced with Bobby being released from prison for her murder and the grievous bodily harm of Jane.
Bobby has been struggling with his mental health as viewers saw him see his deceased sister in the living room, where he had killed her.
However, fans have been left wondering if Lucy's death was a mistake.
Lucy had more potential, should've been Peter.
In a Digital Spy forum about the topic a user wrote: "Just been thinking about how killing off two of the Beale children was a bit of a mistake and this is coming from a person who comes in and out of EastEnders.
"They could have the same storyline even up to the point that Jane moves the body, but she could have still been found alive but close to death.
"You still could have done 'who done it' and all the fallout but you would still have her around in the future. I wonder what the new show runners think of these storylines killing long-standing character's children?"
Viewers agreed saying killing Lucy and her older half-brother Steven was a mistake. Some even said that Lucy's twin Peter should've been the one killed.
A user commented saying: "Peter, yes. Lucy, no. Lucy had more potential as a character."
A second said: "Lucy had more potential, should've been Peter."
A third commented: "Lucy is a legacy character and should have been kept alive. This story was good but damaged the Beales long term."
A fourth wrote: "Killing both Lucy and Steven was a mistake."
Another added: "Yeah, should have been Peter, not Lucy if they wanted to kill a Beale off. A good character gone to waste, very sad."
Others have defended the storyline.
One said: "Killing off Lucy gave us the biggest soap storyline of the decade. It's not as if it wasn't worth it."
A second commented: "You don't 'need' to kill any soap character to be honest. Killing Lucy was a controversial choice because she was an important legacy child.
"However, her death gave us the biggest storyline of the decade, bar none."
A third defended the soap's choice to kill Lucy but not Steven.
They wrote: "I think killing Lucy did give us a great storyline so overall I think it was worth it, but definitely should not have killed off Steven.
"He should have left on the run because his death meant the Beales have pretty much been decimated and will never return to what they once were.
"I don't see Peter returning, but I think Cindy Jr could return and that would be interesting."
What do you think of the soaps decision to kill of Lucy Beale? Leave us a comment on our Facebook page @EntertainmentDailyFix and let us know what you think!