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
1127 Views
I don't see any reason the Graendal theory is wrong from that.
- 14/11/2009 02:53:25 PM
571 Views
He has stated that they will put the mystery to rest in the final books...
- 14/11/2009 04:02:53 PM
673 Views
I actually figured a way that this could come up quite naturally without Graendal
- 14/11/2009 04:11:24 PM
685 Views
RJ said it will probably revealed in the killer's PoV
- 14/11/2009 04:46:20 PM
518 Views
And Brandon said Harriet gave him the freedom to tell the story as he wishes.
- 14/11/2009 06:05:40 PM
499 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
501 Views
Wait...wait...this is funny.
- 20/11/2009 02:05:26 AM
416 Views
I often explained it, because many don't seem to get it
- 20/11/2009 12:17:21 PM
371 Views
So maybe Graendal didn't care enough about Asmodean, either.
- 20/11/2009 02:07:02 PM
395 Views
Neither Graendal nor Slayer mention killing Asmo...
- 20/11/2009 02:46:40 PM
547 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
480 Views
That's wrong
- 14/11/2009 04:45:02 PM
594 Views
Not one word of what I wrote is wrong.
- 15/11/2009 01:41:18 AM
486 Views
right here
- 15/11/2009 03:04:57 AM
455 Views
If Graendal's name is mentioned, then "Graendal" is in the book. *NM*
- 15/11/2009 12:13:57 PM
212 Views
BS just said that Graendal will be mentioned, not appear as a character in ToM. *NM*
- 15/11/2009 09:58:53 AM
203 Views
I never said "appear as a character." *NM*
- 15/11/2009 12:14:16 PM
186 Views
- 15/11/2009 12:44:07 PM
554 Views
- 15/11/2009 12:44:07 PM
554 Views
BS never would have figured it out himself that Graendal did it? *NM*
- 14/11/2009 05:20:19 PM
199 Views
Re: I don't see any reason the Graendal theory is wrong from that.
- 19/11/2009 12:07:25 AM
689 Views
I don't agree with this interpretation at all - your grasping for straws...
- 14/11/2009 07:34:58 PM
476 Views
Only if you make the assumption that she was the most obvious to Sanderson.
- 14/11/2009 07:37:39 PM
530 Views
No. Try again.
- 14/11/2009 11:35:59 PM
550 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
193 Views
*NM*
- 15/11/2009 10:02:26 AM
193 Views
Actually this is more against the Slayer theory
- 15/11/2009 01:49:08 PM
464 Views
Nonsense...
- 15/11/2009 02:06:04 PM
446 Views
Your tenacity is impressive. 
- 15/11/2009 03:14:50 PM
493 Views
- 15/11/2009 03:14:50 PM
493 Views
Absolut statements in such discussions...
- 15/11/2009 03:53:22 PM
425 Views
Re: Absolut statements in such discussions...
- 15/11/2009 05:57:25 PM
382 Views