There's no reason she would have mentioned it in her PoV (by your reasoning) unless she felt it was significant. Maybe she didn't.
That's correct. One should remember, though, that Graendal had five longer PoV, while Slayer had only one pretty short PoV.
However, there was no reason for one of them to necessarily mention Asmo's death in the past, if they were the killer. Therefore the argument that Slayer has to mention Asmo, if he mentions the 2 BA, and is otherwise basically ruled out, holds no water at all.
Yet, since Graendal is obviously dead now and nothing suggests that she will ever have a PoV again - while Slayer definitely will be in ToM & possibly AMoL (likely with a PoV) - BS will certainly get the opportunity to reveal the mystery concerning Asmo's death in Slayer's PoV, as RJ said the revelation would probably happen in the killer's 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
820 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
634 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
644 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
519 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
731 Views
Not one word of what I wrote is wrong.
- 15/11/2009 01:41:18 AM
683 Views
right here
- 15/11/2009 03:04:57 AM
608 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
243 Views
- 15/11/2009 12:44:07 PM
690 Views
- 15/11/2009 12:44:07 PM
690 Views
BS never would have figured it out himself that Graendal did it? *NM*
- 14/11/2009 05:20:19 PM
259 Views
Re: I don't see any reason the Graendal theory is wrong from that.
- 19/11/2009 12:07:25 AM
822 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
679 Views
No. Try again.
- 14/11/2009 11:35:59 PM
687 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
240 Views
*NM*
- 15/11/2009 10:02:26 AM
240 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
636 Views
- 15/11/2009 03:14:50 PM
636 Views
Absolut statements in such discussions...
- 15/11/2009 03:53:22 PM
568 Views
Re: Absolut statements in such discussions...
- 15/11/2009 05:57:25 PM
511 Views