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
1321 Views
I don't see any reason the Graendal theory is wrong from that.
- 14/11/2009 02:53:25 PM
764 Views
He has stated that they will put the mystery to rest in the final books...
- 14/11/2009 04:02:53 PM
889 Views
I actually figured a way that this could come up quite naturally without Graendal
- 14/11/2009 04:11:24 PM
875 Views
RJ said it will probably revealed in the killer's PoV
- 14/11/2009 04:46:20 PM
718 Views
And Brandon said Harriet gave him the freedom to tell the story as he wishes.
- 14/11/2009 06:05:40 PM
681 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
693 Views
Wait...wait...this is funny.
- 20/11/2009 02:05:26 AM
612 Views
I often explained it, because many don't seem to get it
- 20/11/2009 12:17:21 PM
569 Views
So maybe Graendal didn't care enough about Asmodean, either.
- 20/11/2009 02:07:02 PM
596 Views
Neither Graendal nor Slayer mention killing Asmo...
- 20/11/2009 02:46:40 PM
742 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
665 Views
That's wrong
- 14/11/2009 04:45:02 PM
780 Views
Not one word of what I wrote is wrong.
- 15/11/2009 01:41:18 AM
748 Views
right here
- 15/11/2009 03:04:57 AM
657 Views
If Graendal's name is mentioned, then "Graendal" is in the book. *NM*
- 15/11/2009 12:13:57 PM
298 Views
BS just said that Graendal will be mentioned, not appear as a character in ToM. *NM*
- 15/11/2009 09:58:53 AM
282 Views
I never said "appear as a character." *NM*
- 15/11/2009 12:14:16 PM
265 Views
- 15/11/2009 12:44:07 PM
726 Views
- 15/11/2009 12:44:07 PM
726 Views
BS never would have figured it out himself that Graendal did it? *NM*
- 14/11/2009 05:20:19 PM
286 Views
Re: I don't see any reason the Graendal theory is wrong from that.
- 19/11/2009 12:07:25 AM
870 Views
I don't agree with this interpretation at all - your grasping for straws...
- 14/11/2009 07:34:58 PM
671 Views
Only if you make the assumption that she was the most obvious to Sanderson.
- 14/11/2009 07:37:39 PM
739 Views
No. Try again.
- 14/11/2009 11:35:59 PM
738 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
263 Views
*NM*
- 15/11/2009 10:02:26 AM
263 Views
Actually this is more against the Slayer theory
- 15/11/2009 01:49:08 PM
663 Views
Nonsense...
- 15/11/2009 02:06:04 PM
627 Views
Your tenacity is impressive. 
- 15/11/2009 03:14:50 PM
686 Views
- 15/11/2009 03:14:50 PM
686 Views
Absolut statements in such discussions...
- 15/11/2009 03:53:22 PM
616 Views
Re: Absolut statements in such discussions...
- 15/11/2009 05:57:25 PM
557 Views