Sentence One: It's been common knowledge that Sanderson will reveal Asmodean's killer.
This is true. Sanderson (NOT "BS", by the way) has stated this on several occasions.
Sentence Two: 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.
This was explicitly stated in TMJ's linked page, and I quote:
Brandon admitted there would be overlapping chronology between The Gathering Storm and The Towers of Midnight and that Graendal’s name will be mentioned a few times.
Sentence Three: 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 is a completely logical and irrefutable (at the present) conclusion to be drawn from sentences one and two. Not necessarily how it WILL happen, but simply saying that it is still technically possible that Graendal could reveal herself as Asmodean's killer or be revealed by someone else to be Asmodean's killer.
So, now, where exactly am I wrong?
This is true. Sanderson (NOT "BS", by the way) has stated this on several occasions.
Sentence Two: 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.
This was explicitly stated in TMJ's linked page, and I quote:
Brandon admitted there would be overlapping chronology between The Gathering Storm and The Towers of Midnight and that Graendal’s name will be mentioned a few times.
Sentence Three: 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 is a completely logical and irrefutable (at the present) conclusion to be drawn from sentences one and two. Not necessarily how it WILL happen, but simply saying that it is still technically possible that Graendal could reveal herself as Asmodean's killer or be revealed by someone else to be Asmodean's killer.
So, now, where exactly am I wrong?
Political correctness is the pettiest form of casuistry.
ἡ δὲ κἀκ τριῶν τρυπημάτων ἐργαζομένη ἐνεκάλει τῇ φύσει, δυσφορουμένη, ὅτι δὴ μὴ καὶ τοὺς τιτθοὺς αὐτῇ εὐρύτερον ἢ νῦν εἰσι τρυπώη, ὅπως καὶ ἄλλην ἐνταῦθα μίξιν ἐπιτεχνᾶσθαι δυνατὴ εἴη. – Procopius
Ummaka qinnassa nīk!
*MySmiley*
ἡ δὲ κἀκ τριῶν τρυπημάτων ἐργαζομένη ἐνεκάλει τῇ φύσει, δυσφορουμένη, ὅτι δὴ μὴ καὶ τοὺς τιτθοὺς αὐτῇ εὐρύτερον ἢ νῦν εἰσι τρυπώη, ὅπως καὶ ἄλλην ἐνταῦθα μίξιν ἐπιτεχνᾶσθαι δυνατὴ εἴη. – Procopius
Ummaka qinnassa nīk!
*MySmiley*
Another blow to the Graendaldunnit-theory
- 14/11/2009 10:41:32 AM
1564 Views
I don't see any reason the Graendal theory is wrong from that.
- 14/11/2009 02:53:25 PM
996 Views
He has stated that they will put the mystery to rest in the final books...
- 14/11/2009 04:02:53 PM
1137 Views
I actually figured a way that this could come up quite naturally without Graendal
- 14/11/2009 04:11:24 PM
1088 Views
RJ said it will probably revealed in the killer's PoV
- 14/11/2009 04:46:20 PM
941 Views
And Brandon said Harriet gave him the freedom to tell the story as he wishes.
- 14/11/2009 06:05:40 PM
883 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
933 Views
Wait...wait...this is funny.
- 20/11/2009 02:05:26 AM
800 Views
I often explained it, because many don't seem to get it
- 20/11/2009 12:17:21 PM
787 Views
So maybe Graendal didn't care enough about Asmodean, either.
- 20/11/2009 02:07:02 PM
830 Views
Neither Graendal nor Slayer mention killing Asmo...
- 20/11/2009 02:46:40 PM
979 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
892 Views
That's wrong
- 14/11/2009 04:45:02 PM
1021 Views
Not one word of what I wrote is wrong.
- 15/11/2009 01:41:18 AM
940 Views
right here
- 15/11/2009 03:04:57 AM
857 Views
If Graendal's name is mentioned, then "Graendal" is in the book. *NM*
- 15/11/2009 12:13:57 PM
407 Views
BS just said that Graendal will be mentioned, not appear as a character in ToM. *NM*
- 15/11/2009 09:58:53 AM
385 Views
I never said "appear as a character." *NM*
- 15/11/2009 12:14:16 PM
376 Views
- 15/11/2009 12:44:07 PM
953 Views
- 15/11/2009 12:44:07 PM
953 Views
BS never would have figured it out himself that Graendal did it? *NM*
- 14/11/2009 05:20:19 PM
373 Views
Re: I don't see any reason the Graendal theory is wrong from that.
- 19/11/2009 12:07:25 AM
1103 Views
I don't agree with this interpretation at all - your grasping for straws...
- 14/11/2009 07:34:58 PM
907 Views
Only if you make the assumption that she was the most obvious to Sanderson.
- 14/11/2009 07:37:39 PM
962 Views
No. Try again.
- 14/11/2009 11:35:59 PM
975 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
359 Views
*NM*
- 15/11/2009 10:02:26 AM
359 Views
Actually this is more against the Slayer theory
- 15/11/2009 01:49:08 PM
883 Views
Nonsense...
- 15/11/2009 02:06:04 PM
851 Views
Your tenacity is impressive. 
- 15/11/2009 03:14:50 PM
896 Views
- 15/11/2009 03:14:50 PM
896 Views
Absolut statements in such discussions...
- 15/11/2009 03:53:22 PM
817 Views
Re: Absolut statements in such discussions...
- 15/11/2009 05:57:25 PM
776 Views