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
1268 Views
I don't see any reason the Graendal theory is wrong from that.
- 14/11/2009 02:53:25 PM
717 Views
He has stated that they will put the mystery to rest in the final books...
- 14/11/2009 04:02:53 PM
831 Views
I actually figured a way that this could come up quite naturally without Graendal
- 14/11/2009 04:11:24 PM
822 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
636 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
646 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
520 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
689 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
732 Views
Not one word of what I wrote is wrong.
- 15/11/2009 01:41:18 AM
684 Views
right here
- 15/11/2009 03:04:57 AM
609 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
244 Views
- 15/11/2009 12:44:07 PM
692 Views
- 15/11/2009 12:44:07 PM
692 Views
BS never would have figured it out himself that Graendal did it? *NM*
- 14/11/2009 05:20:19 PM
260 Views
Re: I don't see any reason the Graendal theory is wrong from that.
- 19/11/2009 12:07:25 AM
823 Views
I don't agree with this interpretation at all - your grasping for straws...
- 14/11/2009 07:34:58 PM
620 Views
Only if you make the assumption that she was the most obvious to Sanderson.
- 14/11/2009 07:37:39 PM
681 Views
No. Try again.
- 14/11/2009 11:35:59 PM
689 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
241 Views
*NM*
- 15/11/2009 10:02:26 AM
241 Views
Actually this is more against the Slayer theory
- 15/11/2009 01:49:08 PM
612 Views
Nonsense...
- 15/11/2009 02:06:04 PM
582 Views
Your tenacity is impressive. 
- 15/11/2009 03:14:50 PM
637 Views
- 15/11/2009 03:14:50 PM
637 Views
Absolut statements in such discussions...
- 15/11/2009 03:53:22 PM
570 Views
Re: Absolut statements in such discussions...
- 15/11/2009 05:57:25 PM
512 Views