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
1303 Views
I don't see any reason the Graendal theory is wrong from that.
- 14/11/2009 02:53:25 PM
750 Views
He has stated that they will put the mystery to rest in the final books...
- 14/11/2009 04:02:53 PM
872 Views
I actually figured a way that this could come up quite naturally without Graendal
- 14/11/2009 04:11:24 PM
857 Views
RJ said it will probably revealed in the killer's PoV
- 14/11/2009 04:46:20 PM
701 Views
And Brandon said Harriet gave him the freedom to tell the story as he wishes.
- 14/11/2009 06:05:40 PM
663 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
676 Views
Wait...wait...this is funny.
- 20/11/2009 02:05:26 AM
596 Views
I often explained it, because many don't seem to get it
- 20/11/2009 12:17:21 PM
548 Views
So maybe Graendal didn't care enough about Asmodean, either.
- 20/11/2009 02:07:02 PM
579 Views
Neither Graendal nor Slayer mention killing Asmo...
- 20/11/2009 02:46:40 PM
721 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
651 Views
That's wrong
- 14/11/2009 04:45:02 PM
763 Views
Not one word of what I wrote is wrong.
- 15/11/2009 01:41:18 AM
736 Views
right here
- 15/11/2009 03:04:57 AM
643 Views
If Graendal's name is mentioned, then "Graendal" is in the book. *NM*
- 15/11/2009 12:13:57 PM
288 Views
BS just said that Graendal will be mentioned, not appear as a character in ToM. *NM*
- 15/11/2009 09:58:53 AM
275 Views
I never said "appear as a character." *NM*
- 15/11/2009 12:14:16 PM
257 Views
- 15/11/2009 12:44:07 PM
719 Views
- 15/11/2009 12:44:07 PM
719 Views
BS never would have figured it out himself that Graendal did it? *NM*
- 14/11/2009 05:20:19 PM
276 Views
Re: I don't see any reason the Graendal theory is wrong from that.
- 19/11/2009 12:07:25 AM
851 Views
I don't agree with this interpretation at all - your grasping for straws...
- 14/11/2009 07:34:58 PM
654 Views
Only if you make the assumption that she was the most obvious to Sanderson.
- 14/11/2009 07:37:39 PM
716 Views
No. Try again.
- 14/11/2009 11:35:59 PM
724 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
259 Views
*NM*
- 15/11/2009 10:02:26 AM
259 Views
Actually this is more against the Slayer theory
- 15/11/2009 01:49:08 PM
638 Views
Nonsense...
- 15/11/2009 02:06:04 PM
611 Views
Your tenacity is impressive. 
- 15/11/2009 03:14:50 PM
668 Views
- 15/11/2009 03:14:50 PM
668 Views
Absolut statements in such discussions...
- 15/11/2009 03:53:22 PM
602 Views
Re: Absolut statements in such discussions...
- 15/11/2009 05:57:25 PM
544 Views