Murder at the Cottage | Sky

"Covered in blood", you say. There were spatters or splashes of what was discovered to be Mme. DuPlantier's blood but none belonging to the assailant or anyone else. The chief suspect had already given a blood sample so a match could have been made. They found nothing. No blood, other than that of the victim, no hair, skin fragments, fingerprints or clothing fibres. The forensic testing method used to deduce this has never been called into question for being unsafe or inaccurate. So what if that gate was still in storage and re-tested today. Would anything new be discovered, even allowing for more advanced testing methods? I seriously doubt it.

Looking at those hands, I'd say she could lift a cavity block easy enough.

But I believe she was 6 months pregnant at the time of the murder,

so maybe a Serbian hitman.....

Edit;

She was not pregnant at the time of the murder,

daughter was 3 months old when she married Daniel in June 1998.

I don't think this was the case. The pathologist would have found that out and I don't think that the pathologist lied in this matter.

Also, if Sophie was sleeping with various other men, she would have used contraception. And if she wasn't happy with Daniel, she certainly wasn't wanting a child with him.

A Paris-based journalist claimed Daniel Toscan du Plantier revealed to him that Sophie was pregnant.

I think Daniel may have said this convince all that they were happy couple and going to have a baby ( when clearly they were anything but a happy normal couple). Conveniently he said this years after the murder. The autopsy would have revealed this information Im sure -It would have been relavent if she was pregnant and this would have been made public. I think Daniel is lying on the pregnancy.

I didn't know that.

Neither Sheridan nor the Netflix documentation mentioned that, even though the pathologist was interviewed.

Is it known or has it ever been determined who the father is?

This would make it a double murder case, then.

It's also quite possible that the child wasn't Daniel's.

Regarding the "husband hit order" scenario --

Obviously it would need to be synchronised with an Irish visit so what might be the drill ???

Send over a "Jackal" type agent or use some form of international ex-millitary network,? otherwise it's "hire-a-goon" territory.

If the husband was inclined towards that goal, I suspect it would be more logical to carry out such an operation in France.

If it was a "husband hit order" then I don't think it would have been somebody from Ireland. I'd say, it would have been somebody from France who travelled to Ireland, with clear instructions on where the house was and how to find it, maybe one connecting flight somewhere to erase traces regarding travel. However police wasn't able or totally incompetent to trace the travel of a possible killer, - it would also have been a difficult job.

One thing would be certain: Daniel Toscan du Plantier would most likely have had the strongest financial motive for the murder of his wife.

Jumping back a couple of pages. Regarding Shirley Lyons going out after the murder to do her shopping etc. On the day of discovering the body wasn't Leo Bolger allowed through the crimescene to drop some groceries up to the Lyons house for the very reason that she couldn't or wouldndn't have to?

Did she not already drive the car out past the scene?

You would think the car was part of the initial crime scene as initially they thought it was a hit and run due to the injuries to Mdme Plantier and her body was in the layby.

Actually quite spooky when you read up on some of the interpretations of this poem;

After reading the first line of the poem, the reader is aware that the narrator is about to recount a dream. By using the word “strange” to specify how the death took place in a “strange place,” Yeats stresses the importance of home from the beginning. If he were comfortable with the idea of a foreign land, the word strange would not be utilized. Yeats initially shields the importance of the person who has died, but as the poem progress, the reader becomes aware that the narrator is dreaming about someone who he loves dearly.

Yeats’s lyrical dreamscape expresses one of his consciousness’s deepest anxieties. While there is no definitive meter, there is certainly a clear rhythm.

Using a dark and unsettling tone in the third and fourth lines, Yeats paints a picture of how the “peasants” of the foreign land “nailed the boards above her face.” Yeats emphasizes how she has died a lonely death away from home as the people of this land who do not know anything about her are the ones that bury her.

“A cross they had made out of two bits of wood” presents the idea that her grave is neither made nor tended by a loved one. She was found by strangers who knew nothing about her and exerted minimal effort in burying her. His references to the cross and to a planted cypress tree add a religious and spiritual component. Often placed in cemeteries because they look sad, the cypress tree further emphasizes the solemn tone of the poem.

The last two lines emphasize how beauty fades. This is illuminated by the shift from “she was” to “but now.” Buried in the dirt, her beauty is now unseen by the world. The narrator’s use of the word “lies” has a double meaning when he says that his love “lies under boards.” Not only does she physically lie in a coffin, but her beauty is now a lie as she will slowly decay and will no longer be beautiful.

At the end, the narrator turns the attention to the reader by using the word “thy.” The reader becomes even more emotionally attached to the poem by reflecting on his own first love. By traveling to her grave and carving an inscription, the narrator makes sure the world knows she is loved for eternity.

Yeats wrote this poem about the woman he loved, Maud Gonne. At the time this poem was written, she was traveling to France. Yeats was afraid she would die on her trip as she was predisposed to illness. The historic context shows how the poem was personal to Yeats; however, the themes are important with or without historic context.