It's been common knowledge that Sanderson will reveal Asmodean's killer. It's also been common knowledge that Graendal will be in the next book due to the fact that the time lines are not all caught up to the same point. The fact that Graendal is likely dead does not affect her ability to reveal herself as Asmodean's killer in a POV from Graendal in the next book. This has been settled for some time.
BS said that Graendal will at least be mentioned in ToM. And that at the end of the book we will now, if Graendal has died or not.
Besides that, BS obviously means with the timeline issue that he will bring Perrin's, Mat's, Elayne's and some others plotlines forward, because they are behind Rand's and Egwene's timeline. Graendal is in Rand's plotline, though, and therefore up-to-date, so to speak. Therefore nothing suggestes and it doesn't make much sense that she will have another PoV.
Another blow to the Graendaldunnit-theory
- 14/11/2009 10:41:32 AM
1267 Views
I don't see any reason the Graendal theory is wrong from that.
- 14/11/2009 02:53:25 PM
716 Views
He has stated that they will put the mystery to rest in the final books...
- 14/11/2009 04:02:53 PM
830 Views
I actually figured a way that this could come up quite naturally without Graendal
- 14/11/2009 04:11:24 PM
821 Views
RJ said it will probably revealed in the killer's PoV
- 14/11/2009 04:46:20 PM
673 Views
And Brandon said Harriet gave him the freedom to tell the story as he wishes.
- 14/11/2009 06:05:40 PM
635 Views
We (you, me & RJ) agree that it would be best to reveal it in the killer's PoV
- 14/11/2009 06:40:33 PM
645 Views
Wait...wait...this is funny.
- 20/11/2009 02:05:26 AM
561 Views
I often explained it, because many don't seem to get it
- 20/11/2009 12:17:21 PM
520 Views
So maybe Graendal didn't care enough about Asmodean, either.
- 20/11/2009 02:07:02 PM
548 Views
Neither Graendal nor Slayer mention killing Asmo...
- 20/11/2009 02:46:40 PM
687 Views
It seems you think I don't read any posts and you certainly haven't read this board much.
- 14/11/2009 04:30:06 PM
616 Views
That's wrong
- 14/11/2009 04:45:02 PM
732 Views
Not one word of what I wrote is wrong.
- 15/11/2009 01:41:18 AM
684 Views
right here
- 15/11/2009 03:04:57 AM
609 Views
If Graendal's name is mentioned, then "Graendal" is in the book. *NM*
- 15/11/2009 12:13:57 PM
273 Views
BS just said that Graendal will be mentioned, not appear as a character in ToM. *NM*
- 15/11/2009 09:58:53 AM
264 Views
I never said "appear as a character." *NM*
- 15/11/2009 12:14:16 PM
244 Views
- 15/11/2009 12:44:07 PM
691 Views
- 15/11/2009 12:44:07 PM
691 Views
BS never would have figured it out himself that Graendal did it? *NM*
- 14/11/2009 05:20:19 PM
260 Views
Re: I don't see any reason the Graendal theory is wrong from that.
- 19/11/2009 12:07:25 AM
823 Views
I don't agree with this interpretation at all - your grasping for straws...
- 14/11/2009 07:34:58 PM
619 Views
Only if you make the assumption that she was the most obvious to Sanderson.
- 14/11/2009 07:37:39 PM
681 Views
No. Try again.
- 14/11/2009 11:35:59 PM
689 Views
Ok, I will stay alert for further blows to Graendaldunnit, if this didn't already convince you! 
*NM*
- 15/11/2009 10:02:26 AM
241 Views
*NM*
- 15/11/2009 10:02:26 AM
241 Views
Actually this is more against the Slayer theory
- 15/11/2009 01:49:08 PM
611 Views
Nonsense...
- 15/11/2009 02:06:04 PM
582 Views
Your tenacity is impressive. 
- 15/11/2009 03:14:50 PM
637 Views
- 15/11/2009 03:14:50 PM
637 Views
Absolut statements in such discussions...
- 15/11/2009 03:53:22 PM
569 Views
Re: Absolut statements in such discussions...
- 15/11/2009 05:57:25 PM
511 Views