one word....Asmodean..... ;-)

[Guest cwestervelt]

And then waited until Asmodean showed signs of recognizing them? Based on average human reaction times, (2 seconds per my driver's training classes), there would have been a second or so between him entering the door and then saying the "You?". Nothing in the situation shows he reacted quickly. Whoever it was wasted the opportunity provided by the advance notice? I don't see that likely. Unless said person behind the door was also disoriented... Hmm... I can think of 1 or 2 people for whom that would apply... :)

[Guest cwestervelt]

Wow. 61 pages.

[Guest Egwene]

... and 11000 views :D

 

I think the question that needs answering is what weapon was used to kill him. Without that it is impossible to say if any time was wasted. He could already be shielded, have a knife in his side or some interesting other weav laid upon him. Still enabling him to utter those words, but in a fact he is already dead.

[Graendals favourite]

:) , but the reaction time for something you expect isn't that long. The time frame for him was one step, during which he recognised the killer, then said "You?". It's everything's ready, but press "kill" when he sees you.

 

I've just perused the whole wikipedia to try to find what happens physiologically and psycologically when someone is surprised, but couldn't find anything except a lot of medical terminology... Anyway, from my vast experience, real life and 'Hannibal' for example, it's good to let them see you. Edit: I mean, I'm not that scary, and I don't kill people, but there I mean the surprise.

 

The short time is one of the reasons a surprised killer couldn't have done it. The other is he wouldn't have known Asmo was alone. Depending on the door and the angle, Asmo would barely even have been into the doorway. He couldn't be prepared to just kill anyone coming.

 

Yes, 61 pages, under a month, quite incredible.

[Guest Egwene]

maybe a round of champagne to celebrate?? On second thoughts, here is a nice box of belgian chocolates - much nicer!!

 

*passes round huge box of chocolates*

 

Even if the killer was suprised he/she still had that extra moment to be ready to attack compared to Asmo. The killer could have been off to one side thus giving yet another moment in which to recognise Asmo whilst he did not immediately see the opponent. Chances are the room he was entering was darker than the hall and having to adjust to the light could have been one more factor against him.

[Jonn_2]

Look, Graendal lying in wait is as screwy a concept as any I've heard.

People want to believe it so much that they'll convince themselves that she somehow was snooping around Caemlyn palace, (something she never recalls in her POV history nor does anyone else) she saw Asmodean and decided to kill him. How? By hiding in a pantry, jumping out and saying, "HAPPY BIRTHDAY!"

 

Not only that, but the author supposedly now thinks that it's alright to leave it that way without elaborating.

 

I can't and don't believe any of these things.

[Guest Egwene]

NO,no,no!!!! :shock: Don't missread my post as a Graendal point, Jonn!!!

 

Just looking at the ins and outs of the situation... Not so much trying to point at any one suspect as trying to establish what could have happened without a pre-conceived person on the other side of the door.

[Graendals favourite]

Yea, I don't buy her hiding there either. It contradicts itself. Hiding, when she can move freely masked. Not as if that room could be somehow more important than other rooms.

 

But seeing him and deciding to kill him is credible.

 

The bit of knowing whether Asmo's alone is important. The killer couldn't be that suicidal as to attack without knowing that. A masked Forsaken behind the door, (if he wanted to kill Asmo) would have let Asmo pass him unsuspecting, then follow him to kill him somewhere else, when he had discovered Asmo was walking alone and if he had an idea where Rand was.

 

Thanks for the chocolates. *takes one*

 

Still adding, the person inside wouldn't have had an advantage, because he wouldn't have known who was coming before he saw Asmo. If there's any need for a kill.

[Guest Egwene]

Quite allright Graendal's Fav! :D *takes a few chocs for the road as she has to go soon*

 

Something that just struck me.. on a different tangent. We've been talking about Lanfear/Moiraine/Mat escaping from the Finns, but of course the first's of Mayene used to use the door and must have had pretty good expectations to just return... not having to escape.

[Graendals favourite]

*Grabs a few more befor they disappear* :D

 

That was the snake doorway, where return didn't need to be negotiated. Btw, I bet that has to do with them taking the eyes; how else can they have their realtime Randland theatre, if people don't return!

[Guest cwestervelt]

Yea' date=' I don't buy her hiding there either. It contradicts itself. Hiding, when she can move freely masked. Not as if that room could be somehow more important than other rooms.

 

But seeing him and deciding to kill him is credible.

 

The bit of knowing whether Asmo's alone is important. The killer couldn't be that suicidal as to attack without knowing that. A masked Forsaken behind the door, (if he wanted to kill Asmo) would have let Asmo pass him unsuspecting, then follow him to kill him somewhere else, when he had discovered Asmo was walking alone and if he had an idea where Rand was.

 

Thanks for the chocolates. *takes one*

 

Still adding, the person inside wouldn't have had an advantage, because he wouldn't have known who was coming because he saw Asmo. If there's any need for a kill.[/quote']

 

Graendal seeing Asmodean and killing him is credible, if, and only if, the risk to her is minimal. Graendal seeing Asmodean, unmasking, and then killing him isn't. If she was masked, he wouldn't recognize her so the minimal risk approach is to remain masked. That means the risk of exposure by both the alleged unmasking, and the subsequent killing isn't justifiable.

 

She doesn't use her killing Asmodean as a way to gain advantage over the other Foresaken. According to Grandal's supporters, doing so would make her too big a target. She doesn't take any personal pleasure from it. We would have a PoV if she did.

 

The result is the only thing you can give Graendal is means, and those means apply to any Channeler.

 

She has no motive. You argue that her motive is that Asmodean is a traitor. They you argue that she wouldn't want the other Foresaken to fear her so she hides the fact from everyone, including the reader. In reality, what you are saying is that her reasons for not killing Asmodean, namely fear for her own life, out way her reasons for killing him.

 

She doesn't have opportunity. One minute you argue that it was a chance encounter while she was wandering around masked as that was the only way anyone could have happened. Then you argue that it was an ambush and she wasn't masked so that Asmodean would recognize her. You can't place her in Caemlyn, so argue that no one else can prove she wasn't there. At the same time, you refuse to allow anyone else to put forward a candidate that can't be proven as having been in Caemlyn.

 

Every post made in favour or Graendal, or to rebut a post against her, only makes her look more innocent.

[Graendals favourite]

Graendal seeing Asmodean and killing him is credible, if, and only if, the risk to her is minimal. Graendal seeing Asmodean, unmasking, and then killing him isn't. If she was masked, he wouldn't recognize her so the minimal risk approach is to remain masked. That means the risk of exposure by both the alleged unmasking, and the subsequent killing isn't justifiable.

 

She doesn't use her killing Asmodean as a way to gain advantage over the other Foresaken. According to Grandal's supporters, doing so would make her too big a target. She doesn't take any personal pleasure from it. We would have a PoV if she did.

 

The result is the only thing you can give Graendal is means, and those means apply to any Channeler.

 

She has no motive. You argue that her motive is that Asmodean is a traitor. They you argue that she wouldn't want the other Foresaken to fear her so she hides the fact from everyone, including the reader. In reality, what you are saying is that her reasons for not killing Asmodean, namely fear for her own life, out way her reasons for killing him.

 

She doesn't have opportunity. One minute you argue that it was a chance encounter while she was wandering around masked as that was the only way anyone could have happened. Then you argue that it was an ambush and she wasn't masked so that Asmodean would recognize her. You can't place her in Caemlyn, so argue that no one else can prove she wasn't there. At the same time, you refuse to allow anyone else to put forward a candidate that can't be proven as having been in Caemlyn.

 

Every post made in favour or Graendal, or to rebut a post against her, only makes her look more innocent.

 

 

I argue it was her first and foremost because the killing had to be an ambush. No accidental encouter would have resulted in what we read. No way. That is why it had to be an ambush. What we read results only from the killer knowing Asmodean was coming, and coming alone. Only that. That for why it had to be her.

 

Whatever I think happens must naturally abide by that.

 

So, I say Graendal saw Asmodean by the garden, masked, while gathering information on what has happened. Then, after finding out about Rand-living-Rahvin-obviously-not, she decided to kill him, followed him a while, then at the small door, decided to ambush him, using "every advantage she could get" as I remember reading in one of her povs.

 

From the moment she decided on the ambush, she was committed. So she did it, the best way she could. And reasonable it was-- who knows how many opportunities as good she would have gotten. We know from Glowing Embers she was in no risk. She would have known the same things having walked the palace.

 

But she told the Dark One: Who else counts? And personal safety, Rand is a threat if he kills Rahvin, and a bigger threat if Asmodean is let to teach him longer. That for motive.

 

Opportunity from her capabilities, she could do all this. Yes, an ambush that was decided upon when Asmodean approached that door. She couldn't have known Asmo was to take it before she saw him approach it. She couldn't have more than suspected she would find Asmo in the Palace before she saw him. May as well been Rahvin had killed him, if she knew he went there in the first place.

 

I don't disallow that. I don't care if another candidate should have been in Caemlyn, it's still Graendal who did the murder. Let Sammael be there, he didn't do it. Bashere didn't do it. The only people who could have were female Forsaken, they could Travel, but Moghedien and Lanfear were trapped, and Semirhage and Mesaana did not know of any significance to the day.

[Guest cwestervelt]

Graendal seeing Asmodean and killing him is credible' date=' if, and only if, the risk to her is minimal. Graendal seeing Asmodean, unmasking, and then killing him isn't. If she was masked, he wouldn't recognize her so the minimal risk approach is to remain masked. That means the risk of exposure by both the alleged unmasking, and the subsequent killing isn't justifiable.

 

She doesn't use her killing Asmodean as a way to gain advantage over the other Foresaken. According to Grandal's supporters, doing so would make her too big a target. She doesn't take any personal pleasure from it. We would have a PoV if she did.

 

The result is the only thing you can give Graendal is means, and those means apply to any Channeler.

 

She has no motive. You argue that her motive is that Asmodean is a traitor. They you argue that she wouldn't want the other Foresaken to fear her so she hides the fact from everyone, including the reader. In reality, what you are saying is that her reasons for not killing Asmodean, namely fear for her own life, out way her reasons for killing him.

 

She doesn't have opportunity. One minute you argue that it was a chance encounter while she was wandering around masked as that was the only way anyone could have happened. Then you argue that it was an ambush and she wasn't masked so that Asmodean would recognize her. You can't place her in Caemlyn, so argue that no one else can prove she wasn't there. At the same time, you refuse to allow anyone else to put forward a candidate that can't be proven as having been in Caemlyn.

 

Every post made in favour or Graendal, or to rebut a post against her, only makes her look more innocent.[/quote']

 

 

I argue it was her first and foremost because the killing had to be an ambush. No accidental encouter would have resulted in what we read. No way. That is why it had to be an ambush. What we read results only from the killer knowing Asmodean was coming, and coming alone. Only that. That for why it had to be her.

 

Whatever I think happens must naturally abide by that.

 

So, I say Graendal saw Asmodean by the garden, masked, while gathering information on what has happened. Then, after finding out about Rand-living-Rahvin-obviously-not, she decided to kill him, followed him a while, then at the small door, decided to ambush him, using "every advantage she could get" as I remember reading in one of her povs.

 

From the moment she decided on the ambush, she was committed. So she did it, the best way she could. And reasonable it was-- who knows how many opportunities as good she would have gotten. We know from Glowing Embers she was in no risk. She would have known the same things having walked the palace.

 

But she told the Dark One: Who else counts? And personal safety, Rand is a threat if he kills Rahvin, and a bigger threat if Asmodean is let to teach him longer. That for motive.

 

Opportunity from her capabilities, she could do all this. Yes, an ambush that was decided upon when Asmodean approached that door. She couldn't have known Asmo was to take it before she saw him approach it. She couldn't have more than suspected she would find Asmo in the Palace before she saw him. May as well been Rahvin had killed him, if she knew he went there in the first place.

 

I don't disallow that. I don't care if another candidate should have been in Caemlyn, it's still Graendal who did the murder. Let Sammael be there, he didn't do it. Bashere didn't do it. The only people who could have were female Forsaken, they could Travel, but Moghedien and Lanfear were trapped, and Semirhage and Mesaana did not know of any significance to the day.

 

For anything that was intended to be obvious, that is quite a complicated scenario, full of pure specualtion and little else. You have an ever increasing sequence of "this must have happened". The ship is sinking, and you are baling for all you are worth.

 

So now she told the Dark One she did the deed. Interesting. And on what do you base that assumption? That the Dark One was the only person that knew Asmodean was dead? It is more likely that Graendal knows that Asmodean is dead because Demandred told her after the Dark One told him. He's the Lord of the Grave, he knows when people die which is what provides him with the ability to snag the soul.

 

The series of events that you portray requires us to expect Graendal went completely out of character. She would have avoided Caemlyn, or close procimaty Rand al'Thor unless there was something in it for her. Before you talk about Illian, let me remind you that the situation is not the same. Sammael flaunted the fact that he had found item from the Age of Legends. Rahvin, from everything that was seen and known, didn't have anything. That meens Ilian was a justified risk, while Caemlyn was not.

 

As to your using the gathering of information as a reason why she might have been in Caemlyn, try again. Graendal doesn't do her own intelligence gathering. That is why the information she has is often so critically flawed. On the off chance that she did go looking to see what happened, it would have been to Illian to see if Sammael was still alive. After all, that is who was the intended victim and she had no reason to assume that Rand would go after Rahvin. She likely suspected Rahvin had not intention of going to help in Illian (since it is unlikely she was going to herself) she wouldn't have been surprised by not seeing him there.

 

For Graendal to be a viable you also need to provide a valid reason, from a story perspective, for reader not to have been told. If she is the only one that could have done it, as you insist, than there is none. Verifying this to the reader wouldn't ruin any surprises. Heck, by your reasoning why she had to be the killer, telling the reader wouldn't even give any insight into her plans. You can't use fear of looking like too much of a threat as that applies only to other characters.

 

I don't see her as much more than the comic relief in the books. She thinks she's so great, but she isn't. She thinks she is so manipulative, but she's the one that always gets played. She has been using the same methods to manipulate people since before the War of Power and the other Foresaken see right through them. Even Sammael managed to pull the wool over her eyes.

[Graendals favourite]

It's who killed Asmodean's that's obvious, not the scenario. The scenario is what I think likely, but that is only there to show it could have reasonably happened. Others may come up with other scenarions. However, it is obvious that Graendal was the culprit.

 

Well, I find it highly likely she told the Dark One she killed Asmo since she did. She was most likely to tell him whether he knew it already or not.

 

Her character is debatable, but I fear we don't know enough of it to say this she would have done and that not. It is irrelevant beside hard evidence, however. It's enough we know she's one of the Forsaken.

 

If she wants accurate info quickly, then better she go herself. Who knows whether she paid Sammael a visit, too. And Cairhien. I find the latter likely, but I'm not using it as any kind of evidence.

 

No I don't need to provide any reason why the reader is not told. It is a great thing for an author to get a big murder mystery of his own in there. I find it has some relevance to the story, but I don't consider that any sort of evidence, either. And at this point, I doubt anyone would be surprised hearing she was the one who did it.

 

You're view on her does not affect her actions. She got playd by a fool who died for it. She has always been at the top of the Forsaken, even when there were the near hundred of them I remember mentioned. Demandred is accute, but even he doesn't see her intentions. Sammael was so much of a fool he got her to tangle herself in her own feet.

[Guest cwestervelt]

You're view on her does not affect her actions. She got playd by a fool who died for it. She has always been at the top of the Forsaken' date=' even when there were the near hundred of them I remember mentioned. Demandred is accute, but even he doesn't see her intentions. Sammael was so much of a fool he got her to tangle herself in her own feet.[/quote']

 

At least you are willing to admin that she got played by Sammael. I will agree with you that Sammael was a fool. The fact that a fool was able to play Graendal says quite a lot about her lack of ability as a manipulator. As Obi Wan said, "Who's the more foolish... The fool, or the fool who follows him?" Sammael was a fool, Graendal was a bigger fool.

 

In case you have forgotten, Sammael didn't die for having played Graendal. He died because he was blinded by arrogance and his desire to defeat Rand al'Thor at a place Sammael saw as a having been one of Rand's triumphs. Had he not chosen Shadar Logoth as the site for his confrontation with Rand, he may well have survived. Rand didn't kill him, Mashadar did.

[Graendals favourite]

At least you are willing to admin that she got played by Sammael. I will agree with you that Sammael was a fool. The fact that a fool was able to play Graendal says quite a lot about her lack of ability as a manipulator. As Obi Wan said, "Who's the more foolish... The fool, or the fool who follows him?" Sammael was a fool, Graendal was a bigger fool.

 

In case you have forgotten, Sammael didn't die for having played Graendal. He died because he was blinded by arrogance and his desire to defeat Rand al'Thor at a place Sammael saw as a having been one of Rand's triumphs. Had he not chosen Shadar Logoth as the site for his confrontation with Rand, he may well have survived. Rand didn't kill him, Mashadar did.

 

Oh, I don't deny she got played by him, but I doubt that was due to Sammael's brilliance. She was being too devious. I have two theories on this.

 

Firstly, I'd say what got Graendal under Sammael's thumb was her sending Taim to save Rand. If not for either, he would have gone to Mesaana. Then Sammael sent people to get him for himself, and reacting to that, Graendal sent Taim to stop him from becoming Nae'blis like that. This resulted in Rand being free, only Sammael knew it, (and near quoting) the truth of the events no longer mattered. Then it was established that Graendal was seen with the Aiel, so her only alternative against Sammael informing everyone that Graendal ultimately stopped Mesaana from having Rand, as it appeared to outsiders, was to beg on the mercy of Semirhage or Demandred, so Dem-Sem-Mes would not go after her.

 

It was quite likely Graendal set those Aiel on Mat, though Rand ignoring everything did not find out about that provocation to attack Sammael.

 

What got Sammael also killed, was him telling Graendal, in Ishamael's hearing, that he's been promised to be Nae'blis. If not for that, perhaps Ishamael might have given him a helping hand.

[Guest cwestervelt]

At least you are willing to admin that she got played by Sammael. I will agree with you that Sammael was a fool. The fact that a fool was able to play Graendal says quite a lot about her lack of ability as a manipulator. As Obi Wan said' date=' "Who's the more foolish... The fool, or the fool who follows him?" Sammael was a fool, Graendal was a bigger fool.

 

In case you have forgotten, Sammael didn't die for having played Graendal. He died because he was blinded by arrogance and his desire to defeat Rand al'Thor at a place Sammael saw as a having been one of Rand's triumphs. Had he not chosen Shadar Logoth as the site for his confrontation with Rand, he may well have survived. Rand didn't kill him, Mashadar did.[/quote']

 

Oh, I don't deny she got played by him, but I doubt that was due to Sammael's brilliance. She was being too devious. I have two theories on this.

 

Firstly, I'd say what got Graendal under Sammael's thumb was her sending Taim to save Rand. If not for either, he would have gone to Mesaana. Then Sammael sent people to get him for himself, and reacting to that, Graendal sent Taim to stop him from becoming Nae'blis like that. This resulted in Rand being free, only Sammael knew it, (and near quoting) the truth of the events no longer mattered. Then it was established that Graendal was seen with the Aiel, so her only alternative against Sammael informing everyone that Graendal ultimately stopped Mesaana from having Rand, as it appeared to outsiders, was to beg on the mercy of Semirhage or Demandred, so Dem-Sem-Mes would not go after her.

 

It was quite likely Graendal set those Aiel on Mat, though Rand ignoring everything did not find out about that provocation to attack Sammael.

 

What got Sammael also killed, was him telling Graendal, in Ishamael's hearing, that he's been promised to be Nae'blis. If not for that, perhaps Ishamael might have given him a helping hand.

 

So now you want me to believe that Graendal sent Taim to save Rand and knowledge of that gave Sammael power over her. That is nothing more than unfounded and unsubstantiatable speculation. Total fiction is a better description. Good grief. Is there anything in the books for which you don't have a Graendal did it theory? Graendal was under Sammael's thumb because she bought his line about a truce with Rand. She was eating out of the palm of Sammael's hand before Elaida's embassy even reached Rand.

[Jonn_2]

Well, if the audience isn't explicitly informed what has happened, the scenario actually is very relevant if we are supposed to come up with who did something.

 

Another irrational statement on your part GF. The scenario isn't important? That's ridiculous. Of course it's relevant. You can't separate the motive from the means and the logic that binds them together.

 

As for the whole idea that Graendal has to appear harmless. How does that help? If your adversaries think you are harmless, they can very well take you for granted and it'll end up hurting you before it helps you. Sammael was a good example.

 

On the other hand, who in their right mind would think any of the Forsaken wasn't a threat, no matter what they did or didn't do?

 

As for motive...why would she go out of her way to kill Asmodean? To keep him away from Rand and to make sure Rand doesn't become more of a threat? Really? Rand at that point had already captured Asmodean by himself, defeated Ishamael a few times, and he killed Rahvin and Aginor. Most of this he did without Asmodean's help. How much more of a threat could he be? Why risk a confrontation just to keep Rand from finding out tidbits from an unwilling teacher?

 

Look, we don't even have a clear motive as to why she would be in Caemlyn in the first place. What was she doing there? Finding out information? Cwest said it already. That doesn't make too much sense. There are safer ways to gather information than to risk confronting the guy who just knocked off a colleague of yours. If her motivation was to execute Asmodean, that makes even less sense. There was nothing for her in Caemlyn and getting info on what happened there doesn't require you to risk yourself.

 

Logically, the scenario has to fit the motive to the means, and narratively, it has to serve a purpose.

 

As alarming as it is to see your safe bet in Graendal start to get chipped away, try to look at it objectively, rather than through your personal desire to be right.

[Graendals favourite]

So now you want me to believe that Graendal sent Taim to save Rand and knowledge of that gave Sammael power over her. That is nothing more than unfounded and unsubstantiatable speculation. Total fiction is a better description. Good grief. Is there anything in the books for which you don't have a Graendal did it theory? Graendal was under Sammael's thumb because she bought his line about a truce with Rand. She was eating out of the palm of Sammael's hand before Elaida's embassy even reached Rand.

 

Well, if you want to. I'm not certain I believe those things, but I like the ideas. I have to admit I nowadays have a tendency to consider Graendal in everything, but most things don't have anything to do with her. And I don't really have anything to back those up, except that they fit some things, so they stay as thoughts. Oh, I'd say she slid much further later, but I could be wrong.

 

 

Well, if the audience isn't explicitly informed what has happened, the scenario actually is very relevant if we are supposed to come up with who did something.

 

Another irrational statement on your part GF. The scenario isn't important? That's ridiculous. Of course it's relevant. You can't separate the motive from the means and the logic that binds them together.

 

As for the whole idea that Graendal has to appear harmless. How does that help? If your adversaries think you are harmless, they can very well take you for granted and it'll end up hurting you before it helps you. Sammael was a good example.

 

On the other hand, who in their right mind would think any of the Forsaken wasn't a threat, no matter what they did or didn't do?

 

As for motive...why would she go out of her way to kill Asmodean? To keep him away from Rand and to make sure Rand doesn't become more of a threat? Really? Rand at that point had already captured Asmodean by himself, defeated Ishamael a few times, and he killed Rahvin and Aginor. Most of this he did without Asmodean's help. How much more of a threat could he be? Why risk a confrontation just to keep Rand from finding out tidbits from an unwilling teacher?

 

Look, we don't even have a clear motive as to why she would be in Caemlyn in the first place. What was she doing there? Finding out information? Cwest said it already. That doesn't make too much sense. There are safer ways to gather information than to risk confronting the guy who just knocked off a colleague of yours. If her motivation was to execute Asmodean, that makes even less sense. There was nothing for her in Caemlyn and getting info on what happened there doesn't require you to risk yourself.

 

Logically, the scenario has to fit the motive to the means, and narratively, it has to serve a purpose.

 

As alarming as it is to see your safe bet in Graendal start to get chipped away, try to look at it objectively, rather than through your personal desire to be right.

 

The scenario, motive, opportunity are things that could discard any candidate. But who says one needs to start from them when figuring out the killer. There's a far better place the start, the murder scene, so I start there. I use infallible logic to very quickly discard everyone but Mesaana, Semirhage and Graendal. Motive can be shown to Graendal. Opportunity can be shown to be obviously better than for the other two. A realistic scenario can easily be built. In the scenario, whenever a question arrises of why this or that should have happened, an answer comes easily to mind, the circumstances in the book usually backing it up.

 

But the scenario is less important, because it has to do with the reader explaining what he did not see, in contrast to the proof where one deduces what must have happened. It's the means that dictate the killer, so it is enough she passes motive and opportunity. Not everything needs to highlight her, one is enough.

 

Harmlessness, you should ask Graendal why she does anything, not me. However, there are reasons to appear harmless, too. The point is, Graendal passes the test, she can very credibly decide not to share her knowledge with the rest at that point.

 

It's also a question of being a threat in the race for Nae'blis.

 

When Asmo is there in the garden, and she is watching him, why not decide to try to kill him, if it can be managed silently? You have to endure a little risk to get anything done. Well obviously Rand can become more of a threat than he is now. Graendal will know as well as the rest that he will not be an unwilling teacher at that point, if she ever thought he was.

 

Not clear motive, but I'm saying we don't need one. Several are possible, however. We don't need to know everything. It's like having fingerprints on the knife, and only one person has visited; we don't need to know the motive. The name is enough, and the evidence needed to get the name.

Sure, it gets more complicated after that, but I realise there's no way to prove the killers motive when we don't know what went through the killers head, and how much she knew. Sure, we don't know how exactly the killer went to Caemlyn: How could we when we didn't see her? But that doesn't mean we don't know who killed Asmodean. That was Graendal, because of the way Asmodean was killed.

 

And how can we know what purpose the scenario serves narratively, when we are not RJ. Beyond Asmo dying, I use the killer's identity to build theories, so it serves a purpose also there, to me the case is proven, but obviously stating the theories will not make anyone happier. But trying to prove those would go even more difficult, and unnecessary, because, again, what can be figured out is who killed Asmodean.

 

I jumped ship quite completely thinking of the murder scene, and abandoning the accidental encounter. I didn't find it surprising to end up with the same culprit, but my first word on the matter is a refutation to the traditional Graendal theory. Thusfar nothing has shaken the solution, very often people merely misinterprit it, which I correct when I notice. I hope other people look things objectively, but I've grown quite a certainty of being right, so if you put it in the terms of treating other theories equally, that is beyond me. I use only pre-LoC info, but whenever in doubt, all in need to do is notice another hint in the later books, hints refering more to how it was done than who did it.

[Guest cwestervelt]

Well' date=' if you want to. I'm not certain I believe those things, but I like the ideas. I have to admit I nowadays have a tendency to consider Graendal in everything, but most things don't have anything to do with her. And I don't really have anything to back those up, except that they fit some things, so they stay as thoughts. Oh, I'd say she slid much further later, but I could be wrong.[/quote']

 

Lame attempt at covering your butt. In case you forgot, your the one who said it trying to justify how Graendal isn't total fool.

 

At least you are willing to admin that she got played by Sammael. I will agree with you that Sammael was a fool. The fact that a fool was able to play Graendal says quite a lot about her lack of ability as a manipulator. As Obi Wan said' date=' "Who's the more foolish... The fool, or the fool who follows him?" Sammael was a fool, Graendal was a bigger fool.

 

In case you have forgotten, Sammael didn't die for having played Graendal. He died because he was blinded by arrogance and his desire to defeat Rand al'Thor at a place Sammael saw as a having been one of Rand's triumphs. Had he not chosen Shadar Logoth as the site for his confrontation with Rand, he may well have survived. Rand didn't kill him, Mashadar did.[/quote']

 

Oh, I don't deny she got played by him, but I doubt that was due to Sammael's brilliance. She was being too devious. I have two theories on this.

 

Firstly, I'd say what got Graendal under Sammael's thumb was her sending Taim to save Rand. If not for either, he would have gone to Mesaana. Then Sammael sent people to get him for himself, and reacting to that, Graendal sent Taim to stop him from becoming Nae'blis like that. This resulted in Rand being free, only Sammael knew it, (and near quoting) the truth of the events no longer mattered. Then it was established that Graendal was seen with the Aiel, so her only alternative against Sammael informing everyone that Graendal ultimately stopped Mesaana from having Rand, as it appeared to outsiders, was to beg on the mercy of Semirhage or Demandred, so Dem-Sem-Mes would not go after her.

 

It was quite likely Graendal set those Aiel on Mat, though Rand ignoring everything did not find out about that provocation to attack Sammael.

 

What got Sammael also killed, was him telling Graendal, in Ishamael's hearing, that he's been promised to be Nae'blis. If not for that, perhaps Ishamael might have given him a helping hand.

[Graendals favourite]

I don't see how I was covering anything. I suppose I might have been more direct in highlighting those were theories of mine. You said you thought Graendal was a fool, and I used examples to illustrate how I don't. They have nothing to do with Asmodean's death, so perhaps there is something of a misunderstanding there. I can see the weaknesses of those theories quite well myself.

[Guest cwestervelt]

So now you want me to believe that Graendal sent Taim to save Rand and knowledge of that gave Sammael power over her. That is nothing more than unfounded and unsubstantiatable speculation. Total fiction is a better description. Good grief. Is there anything in the books for which you don't have a Graendal did it theory? Graendal was under Sammael's thumb because she bought his line about a truce with Rand. She was eating out of the palm of Sammael's hand before Elaida's embassy even reached Rand.

 

Well' date=' if you want to. I'm not certain I believe those things, but I like the ideas. I have to admit I nowadays have a tendency to consider Graendal in everything, but most things don't have anything to do with her. And I don't really have anything to back those up, except that they fit some things, so they stay as thoughts. Oh, I'd say she slid much further later, but I could be wrong.

 

 

Well, if the audience isn't explicitly informed what has happened, the scenario actually is very relevant if we are supposed to come up with who did something.

 

Another irrational statement on your part GF. The scenario isn't important? That's ridiculous. Of course it's relevant. You can't separate the motive from the means and the logic that binds them together.

 

As for the whole idea that Graendal has to appear harmless. How does that help? If your adversaries think you are harmless, they can very well take you for granted and it'll end up hurting you before it helps you. Sammael was a good example.

 

On the other hand, who in their right mind would think any of the Forsaken wasn't a threat, no matter what they did or didn't do?

 

As for motive...why would she go out of her way to kill Asmodean? To keep him away from Rand and to make sure Rand doesn't become more of a threat? Really? Rand at that point had already captured Asmodean by himself, defeated Ishamael a few times, and he killed Rahvin and Aginor. Most of this he did without Asmodean's help. How much more of a threat could he be? Why risk a confrontation just to keep Rand from finding out tidbits from an unwilling teacher?

 

Look, we don't even have a clear motive as to why she would be in Caemlyn in the first place. What was she doing there? Finding out information? Cwest said it already. That doesn't make too much sense. There are safer ways to gather information than to risk confronting the guy who just knocked off a colleague of yours. If her motivation was to execute Asmodean, that makes even less sense. There was nothing for her in Caemlyn and getting info on what happened there doesn't require you to risk yourself.

 

Logically, the scenario has to fit the motive to the means, and narratively, it has to serve a purpose.

 

As alarming as it is to see your safe bet in Graendal start to get chipped away, try to look at it objectively, rather than through your personal desire to be right.

 

The scenario, motive, opportunity are things that could discard any candidate. But who says one needs to start from them when figuring out the killer. There's a far better place the start, the murder scene, so I start there. I use infallible logic to very quickly discard everyone but Mesaana, Semirhage and Graendal. Motive can be shown to Graendal. Opportunity can be shown to be obviously better than for the other two. A realistic scenario can easily be built. In the scenario, whenever a question arrises of why this or that should have happened, an answer comes easily to mind, the circumstances in the book usually backing it up.

 

But the scenario is less important, because it has to do with the reader explaining what he did not see, in contrast to the proof where one deduces what must have happened. It's the means that dictate the killer, so it is enough she passes motive and opportunity. Not everything needs to highlight her, one is enough.

 

Harmlessness, you should ask Graendal why she does anything, not me. However, there are reasons to appear harmless, too. The point is, Graendal passes the test, she can very credibly decide not to share her knowledge with the rest at that point.

 

It's also a question of being a threat in the race for Nae'blis.

 

When Asmo is there in the garden, and she is watching him, why not decide to try to kill him, if it can be managed silently? You have to endure a little risk to get anything done. Well obviously Rand can become more of a threat than he is now. Graendal will know as well as the rest that he will not be an unwilling teacher at that point, if she ever thought he was.

 

Not clear motive, but I'm saying we don't need one. Several are possible, however. We don't need to know everything. It's like having fingerprints on the knife, and only one person has visited; we don't need to know the motive. The name is enough, and the evidence needed to get the name.

Sure, it gets more complicated after that, but I realise there's no way to prove the killers motive when we don't know what went through the killers head, and how much she knew. Sure, we don't know how exactly the killer went to Caemlyn: How could we when we didn't see her? But that doesn't mean we don't know who killed Asmodean. That was Graendal, because of the way Asmodean was killed.

 

And how can we know what purpose the scenario serves narratively, when we are not RJ. Beyond Asmo dying, I use the killer's identity to build theories, so it serves a purpose also there, to me the case is proven, but obviously stating the theories will not make anyone happier. But trying to prove those would go even more difficult, and unnecessary, because, again, what can be figured out is who killed Asmodean.

 

I jumped ship quite completely thinking of the murder scene, and abandoning the accidental encounter. I didn't find it surprising to end up with the same culprit, but my first word on the matter is a refutation to the traditional Graendal theory. Thusfar nothing has shaken the solution, very often people merely misinterprit it, which I correct when I notice. I hope other people look things objectively, but I've grown quite a certainty of being right, so if you put it in the terms of treating other theories equally, that is beyond me. I use only pre-LoC info, but whenever in doubt, all in need to do is notice another hint in the later books, hints refering more to how it was done than who did it.

 

You hope other people look at things objectively? I like the fact that you admit someone needs to do that as you certainly do not. A good clue to that lack is how you are claiming "infallible logic" that is nothing more than pure supposition.

 

You can't provide, means, motive or opportunity. Because you can't, you say you don't need to prove anything because, according to you, no one else could have done it. Once again, that is not in the least bit objective.

 

You claim you start at the murder scene, yet you also claim the scenario surrounding the murder is "less important". You say that because otherwise you cannot support your pro Graendal stance. How is that being objective. The scenario and the murder scene are inseperable because the only information we have about the murder scene comes from the scenario.

 

You use the killer's identity to build theories. Once again, your own words prove that you are not being object. You can build a theory to determine the identity, but you can't go the other way. A theory needs to have a basis in fact, and your approach is trying to base a theory in speculation.

 

You ask how we can know what purpose the scenario serves narratively as we aren't RJ. Well, in a well written story, you shouldn't need to be author to do that. Failure to provide a reader with sufficient information to determine the author's intent with a scene is a mark of poor story telling. If information isn't provided, it needs to be left out for a viable reason, and then supplied at a reasonable point and in a timely manner. The story has progressed well beyond anything that can still be considered reasonable or timely with respect to Graendal having been involved.

[Guest cwestervelt]

I don't see how I was covering anything. I suppose I might have been more direct in highlighting those were theories of mine. You said you thought Graendal was a fool' date=' and I used examples to illustrate how I don't. They have nothing to do with Asmodean's death, so perhaps there is something of a misunderstanding there. I can see the weaknesses of those theories quite well myself.[/quote']

 

I am glad you can see the weaknesses yourself. The first one is that they aren't theories. You need to have a basis in fact to make a theory and that was completely lacking. They also had nothing to do with why she would have played second fiddle for Sammael as you tried to claim as the order of events clearly showed otherwise.

[Graendals favourite]

You hope other people look at things objectively? I like the fact that you admit someone needs to do that as you certainly do not. A good clue to that lack is how you are claiming "infallible logic" that is nothing more than pure supposition.

 

You can't provide, means, motive or opportunity. Because you can't, you say you don't need to prove anything because, according to you, no one else could have done it. Once again, that is not in the least bit objective.

 

You claim you start at the murder scene, yet you also claim the scenario surrounding the murder is "less important". You say that because otherwise you cannot support your pro Graendal stance. How is that being objective. The scenario and the murder scene are inseperable because the only information we have about the murder scene comes from the scenario.

 

You use the killer's identity to build theories. Once again, your own words prove that you are not being object. You can build a theory to determine the identity, but you can't go the other way. A theory needs to have a basis in fact, and your approach is trying to base a theory in speculation.

 

You ask how we can know what purpose the scenario serves narratively as we aren't RJ. Well, in a well written story, you shouldn't need to be author to do that. Failure to provide a reader with sufficient information to determine the author's intent with a scene is a mark of poor story telling. If information isn't provided, it needs to be left out for a viable reason, and then supplied at a reasonable point and in a timely manner. The story has progressed well beyond anything that can still be considered reasonable or timely with respect to Graendal having been involved.

 

Well, I hope that, since they post here, or elsewise say otherwise. I'm confident I have the right solution, so stating that is the most straightforward thing I could do. I've been quite consistent with that, too, during the whole thread, so I haven't been misleading anyone. I've been introducing a new solution to the problem.

 

Tell me then what is failing in the logic: The murder could not possibly have happened the way written if the killer didn't know Asmodean was coming and alone, beforehand. Thus the killer knew beforehand. Thus it was an ambush. Thus it was a female forsaken. Thus it was obviously Graendal.

 

I provide what is necessary to prove the identity, and prefer to avoid further speculation. The rest, means, motive, opportunity do not conflict, so what we know is sufficient.

 

That is just misinterpreting the proof. The scenario would be important, if none such that was reasonable existed. That would be a refutation, but a reasonable scenario exists. The only information we have of the murder scene comes from Asmo's pov, but there's plenty there. A simply list would probably be longer than the pov.

 

Yes, I admit I am confident about the solution. If you ask me what relevance to the rest of the story the killer's identity has, what else do you expect as an answer? And I'm obviously not waiting for anyone's permission to make up theories. But how many times is it necessary to say: "Also this I don't consider evidence, one way or another."

 

It is just bizarre to demand what Graendal's impact because of this would be, but expect it would be there without knowing who the killer is, when the impact will hinge on knowing she really did do it, as RJ has said the killer can be figured out. I say, as plainly as I can, that the impact is confirming Graendal's off-scenes activities, but don't blame the answer, blame the question.

[Graendals favourite]

I don't see how I was covering anything. I suppose I might have been more direct in highlighting those were theories of mine. You said you thought Graendal was a fool' date=' and I used examples to illustrate how I don't. They have nothing to do with Asmodean's death, so perhaps there is something of a misunderstanding there. I can see the weaknesses of those theories quite well myself.[/quote']

 

I am glad you can see the weaknesses yourself. The first one is that they aren't theories. You need to have a basis in fact to make a theory and that was completely lacking. They also had nothing to do with why she would have played second fiddle for Sammael as you tried to claim as the order of events clearly showed otherwise.

 

Ahh, what is the definition of a theory. A scientific theory yes has something behind it, but there's enough looney theories around. Those make more sense to me than many loonie theories, but I don't claim they'd have much credibility. Since when is it necessary to prove every thought one mentions is correct?