Was CERSEI Joffrey's True Murderer?

[Ferocious Veldt Roarer]

On 2/24/2018 at 8:57 PM, Dorian Martell's son said:

So, poison must work EXACTLY the same on a very old man as it does on a young vigorous man in the prime of his life?

 

1 hour ago, John Suburbs said:

Timewise, yes. If you drank a straight shot of ammonia, would it burn you instantly? If you poured it into a large glass of water and drank that, would it still burn you instantly but not as badly, or would it take a few minutes to reconcentrate in your throat and then burn you? If you placed a tiny drop of ammonia into a large glass of water, would that burn you instantly, if at all, or would it also take a few minutes and then come back and burn you. Simple, basic scientific principle: dilution does not delay the attack of a contact poison like the strangler, it merely weakens it.

If you think that nobody has noticed that DMs asked precisely about the age of the victim, and you, for reasons known only to you, redirected to dilution, thus rebuking nobody's argument - I'm afraid you'll be disappointed.

But, if you don't mind, I propose other universal fallback redirects: shoe size. Family name. Coat of arms. Singapore. Just be confident, and we won't notice that we weren't, actually, talking about Singapore at all.

[Prince of the North]

7 minutes ago, Lollygag said:

The bolded is a very valid question. Necessary even. I recall that the moral dilemma had to do with that Joff was being judged at just 13. In an earlier chapter, Tywin was saying "there's still time" to get Joff in a better place or something to that effect. He started out bad, but I think we're supposed to wonder if his environment exacerbated it and if Joff was removed to a better situation if he would not have improved. 

As to what I think is going on? No, I don't have any theories. I’m confused as heck. I have ideas about this detail or that detail but nothing that fits the whole picture—not even close— and right now I’m at the point where if something doesn’t fit all of the details, then it won’t suffice for me. My best guess is that there are multiple things going on, one of which is Olenna and the wine. Maybe they’re different pieces of the same plot, maybe different plans by different people became crossed and interfered with each other, maybe there was some double-crossing in plots. I don’t know. I’m doing a Tyrion reread but am only on ACOK so I'm keeping my eyes open for anything. 

I’m more interested in going back to the start and really laying out who is doing what preceding, during, and right after the PW, what they’re saying, what gets mentioned in context, and seeing if any explanations pop up which might fit all of the facts, not just bits and pieces.

 

I expect that the PW should read like the RW if we have a complete picture. I don’t recall any info in the RW that wasn’t required for the scene or part of the plot of the betrayal. It all just made sense after we found out what happened.

 

 

 

 

This all seems quite reasonable to me.  I think we're in close agreement but we'll probably never be in complete agreement because I believe that between the books and Martin's interview we already know the who, what, when, where, how, and why of Joff's murder (I'm not sure if you do or not?).    But I think there certainly could be something more going on there, too, besides Joff's poisoning by the QoT to protect her granddaughter while setting Sansa up to be a possible patsy.  I haven't really looked into or thought much about that

[Lollygag]

38 minutes ago, John Suburbs said:

Lol, he will. In the next book or two he will reveal the whole thing, just as he revealed the truth about the Arryn murder, the Westerling conspiracy and, as many people anticipate, Jon's parentage.

The thing about the Purple Wedding is that it's not just the minutia that disproves it, or this or that piece of text, but it's own internal logic. Over and over again we have to assume one thing to square it with the text only to assume the exact opposite for another. Examples:

Assumption: Lady Olenna does not know the truth about Joffrey until Sansa reveals it. So then at some later time, Littlefinger, who has not even confessed to this lie, convinces Lady O to purposely give to the king and the queen a giant chalice that is demonstrably more difficult to poison than a simple cup and can only serve to delay the poison long enough so that Margaery will likely drink from it as well? And that she will poison this chalice in front of 1000 people at a time when her entire family is surrounded by Lannister guards all while the liar himself is safe and sound on his boat in the bay? So that means Lady O is not the sharp political operator who successfully navigated her way to the head of the most powerful house in the realm? She really is the scatter-brained dolt that she appears to be in public and is only pretending to be smart in private? And Littlefinger is trusting this idiot with the most important and risky operation of his life?

Assumption: Cressen's wine was more poisoned than Joffrey's. So Joffrey's "deep purple" wine had only a modicum amount of poison but the "flake" of crystal that Cressen put into a normal half-glass is enough to push his to 5x or 6x more poisoned than "deep purple"? And in all the years that the strangler is being used, it is apparently so untrustworthy that it can take anywhere from a few seconds to a few minutes to work depending on an endless list of factors, and even a tiny amount is enough to turn normal wine practically black? And no one in all this time has considered the possibility that maybe deploying it in crystal form into wine is probably not the best way to do it, since it can be so easily detected and no one knows exactly how, or even whether, it's going to work?

From start to finish, the wine theory collapses on itself at virtually every point. This alone, not the minutia, not "I make no promises" should give everyone pause that the emperor has no clothes on this one.

I can't speak to any of this with any detail as I've not been a close follower of PW until my Tyrion re-read and you seem to be referring to past discussions I've not seen. You raise some valid questions, but I still don't agree that it counts against "it was Olenna with the wine in the Throne Room". Only that what happened was more complicated than the Clue-like answer which we've been given. And it may not have been the only thing happening. 

 

[Lollygag]

18 minutes ago, Prince of the North said:

This all seems quite reasonable to me.  I think we're in close agreement but we'll probably never be in complete agreement because I believe that between the books and Martin's interview we already know the who, what, when, where, how, and why of Joff's murder (I'm not sure if you do or not?).    But I think there certainly could be something more going on there, too, besides Joff's poisoning by the QoT to protect her granddaughter while setting Sansa up to be a possible patsy.  I haven't really looked into or thought much about that

I don't think we're that far off. I'm just not really sure yet. I'm seeing 2+2=5 so it looks like there's some missing pieces. But there may be explanations in happenings not directly related to the poisoning Joff plot. 

[Prince of the North]

39 minutes ago, Lollygag said:

I don't think we're that far off. I'm just not really sure yet. I'm seeing 2+2=5 so it looks like there's some missing pieces. But there may be explanations in happenings not directly related to the poisoning Joff plot. 

Hey, I think a great many posters around here are always open to new thoughts, speculation, questions, etc, that are presented as such.  Keep asking questions.  After all, what else are we to do while trying to get through this interminable wait for TWoW?! 

[Kandrax]

Here is my theory. There is second poisoner. Lf poisoned Joff with the chalice, but Tyrell's baker tried to poison every guest with pie.

That's just a theory. A Song of ice and fire theory.

[Light a wight tonight]

20 hours ago, Lollygag said:

I'm having trouble discussing this at such an abstract level. I know what you're saying when people start Frankensteining the books together without regard to the integrity of the structure to support a favored idea. But I've also seen some very deep analysis of the minutiae and the way it all comes together in such a way that can't be an accident. When I and others look at foreshadowing and build up for what's already happened (rather than pounding the podium on the proposed foreshadowing and build up of a favored theory), the minutiae is there. This is why I hold that the books in general are written this way. Unless GRRM comes out and says that he told us everything about the PW, I'll accept that. But not until then. 

I want answers for this stuff. If minutiae isn't important, then I want to know why he bothered with the repetitive detail about what is nothing. Either he's a bad writer with pointless filler about a cup and its size and weight and how Tyrion's eyes feel, or he's a good writer and there's something going on here. 

http://asoiaf.westeros.org/index.php?/topic/150428-was-cersei-joffreys-true-murderer/&do=findComment&comment=8135661

I guess I disagree with you when it comes to GRRM's attention to detail, but I agree with what prompted you write this post. 

Mmm, how Tyrion's eyes feel? Try dibbling s few drops of wine into your eyes to see how badly it stings or does not. No need for conjecture.

As to gathering up minutia to create things, there's a psychological term for finding patterns that are not there: apophenia.

[the trees have eyes]

6 hours ago, John Suburbs said:

Noted, but get ready for when the truth comes out. At least you'll have a frame of reference to understand what really happened with the poisoning, why it happened, how the politics work and, well, virtually everything else.

LOL, thank you for proposing to explain the books and life in general to me!  I shall file your invitation along with the others from the guys who insist the High Septon is Howland Reed on a mission to secure Jon on the throne or that no one fought and died at the ToJ (they all went into exile or joined the NW and Qhorin is Gerold Hightower, etc, etc).

A more interesting question is how you will handle being wrong about all of this given how much time and internet ink you have invested into it. 

Sadly, it seems we'll have quite the wait yet.

[Lollygag]

5 hours ago, Light a wight tonight said:

Mmm, how Tyrion's eyes feel? Try dibbling s few drops of wine into your eyes to see how badly it stings or does not. No need for conjecture.

As to gathering up minutia to create things, there's a psychological term for finding patterns that are not there: apophenia.

You're not addressing why it's mentioned three times. And repetition is tied to pattern. For example, consistent repetition is the basis of a "pattern of behavior". When it's repeated thrice, that changes things. Especially when it involves Joff's wine which is so important here. Many on this forum treat 3 repeats as GRRM telling the reader to sit up and pay attention. 

And Tyrion's eyes burning this badly doesn't work with my personal experience. Ever see anyone splashed with beer or wine in the face and have their eyes affected like Tyrion? I haven't. I've been to a number of college parties where all kinds of things happen, and I've not seen anyone get problems from beer or wine in the eye. What about when champagne is sprayed everywhere? I've not seen anyone react there either. I can't think of a single time either in reality or tv/movies where someone reacted to beer/wine in the face which at least sometimes must reach the eye. I imagine a higher alcoholic content would result in a reaction. 

https://www.marieclaire.com/beauty/news/a23494/red-wine-pool-spa/

[Ferocious Veldt Roarer]

5 hours ago, Lollygag said:

You're not addressing why it's mentioned three times. And repetition is tied to pattern. For example, consistent repetition is the basis of a "pattern of behavior". When it's repeated thrice, that changes things. Especially when it involves Joff's wine which is so important here. Many on this forum treat 3 repeats as GRRM telling the reader to sit up and pay attention. 

And Tyrion's eyes burning this badly doesn't work with my personal experience.

Does it work with Tyrion's personal experience, though? He was no stranger to wine (understatement). Does he ever wonder how unusual it was for wine to sting his eyes? During the event, or ever after? No?

The phrase "wine stung his eyes" doesn't, on its own, draw the readers' attention. And the author does little to draw our attention to it. I don't think it serves any other purpose than to show Tyrion miserable.

[Ygrain]

14 hours ago, Prince of the North said:

I believe that between the books and Martin's interview we already know the who, what, when, where, how, and why of Joff's murder

I agree that the big picture has already been hammered out and that the interview doesn't leave a single shadow of doubt about 'whodunnit' but I believe there are details which haven't been revealed yet. As @Lollygag pointed out, there is too much emphasis on the various sizes and heights, which would lead to the conclusion that Olenna was too short to reach the chalice and needed someone to do it for her. Also, there is the testimony of Taena Merryweather, where we don't know if she was trying to ingratiate herself with Cersei, or if someone (LF) paid her to frame Tyrion.

[Ygrain]

1 hour ago, Ferocious Veldt Roarer said:

Does it work with Tyrion's personal experience, though? He was no stranger to wine (understatement). Does he ever wonder how unusual it was for wine to sting his eyes? During the event, or ever after? No?

The phrase "wine stung his eyes" doesn't, on its own, draw the readers' attention. And the author does little to draw our attention to it. I don't think it serves any other purpose than to show Tyrion miserable.

Lol to the bolded

I don't recall ever getting wine in my eyes but mere water is pretty unpleasant, so I never considered as anything out of the ordinary.

I cannot check now, isn't the wine mentioned as strong?

[Lollygag]

1 hour ago, Ferocious Veldt Roarer said:

Does it work with Tyrion's personal experience, though? He was no stranger to wine (understatement). Does he ever wonder how unusual it was for wine to sting his eyes? During the event, or ever after? No?

The phrase "wine stung his eyes" doesn't, on its own, draw the readers' attention. And the author does little to draw our attention to it. I don't think it serves any other purpose than to show Tyrion miserable.

If there’s text elsewhere when Tyrion or any other POV characters gets wine in their eyes, then we can be sure. I’ve not seen it that I recall, but I’ll keep an eye out.

As such, you can make a case either way. Tyrion maybe doesn’t question the wine stinging badly because he’s never had wine in his eyes. Drinking a lot doesn’t necessarily mean he’s been around Animal House type circumstances, had wine tossed in his face by a woman (bad for business if you’re a whore), spraying champagne, or just some accident. So  People are left to believe what they want on this one without other situations to compare it to. 

 I’d agree with you about making the point that Tyrion is miserable if it was one mention. But 3 is unnecessary. And Tyrion being miserable about having the wine poured on him and his clothing being sodden is more about highlighting that no one is permitted to leave which seems important for some reason.

As I said, it’s the 3x mention which is an often-used device for highlighting something + the other odd things going on + GRRM missing the mark in that wine doesn’t normally sting like that in real life, yet he wrote it that way which keeps me from handwaving this. Is GRRM aware of what wine feels like in the eyes? What has he seen and experienced? I dunno.

 

Tyrion is the reader’s eyes on this. Did you notice what’s going on when we’re told Tyrion’s eyes are on stinging, on fire, blurring?

 

The first time is right after he gets Joff’s wine dumped on him. Tyrion’s eyes sting. A few moments later, his vision is impaired. Tyrion's eyes were on fire. He dabbed at his face with the back of a sleeve and tried to blink the world back into clarity. Tyrion’s vision is impaired as he’s receiving and pouring the wine into Joff’s cup. Did his burning eyes cause him to miss something? The question of unreliable narrator arises.

{Tywin announces the pie, Joff is told he can’t cut the pie with Widow’s Wail, Ilyn is called and his sword is described}

Ser Ilyn bowed before the king and queen, reached back over his shoulder, and drew forth six feet of ornate silver bright with runes. He knelt to offer the huge blade to Joffrey, hilt first; points of red fire winked from ruby eyes on the pommel, a chunk of dragonglass carved in the shape of a grinning skull.

Sansa stirred in her seat. "What sword is that?"

Tyrion's eyes still stung from the wine. He blinked and looked again. Ser Ilyn's greatsword was as long and wide as Ice, but it was too silvery-bright; Valyrian steel had a darkness to it, a smokiness in its soul. Sansa clutched his arm. "What has Ser Ilyn done with my father's sword?"

I should have sent Ice back to Robb Stark, Tyrion thought. He glanced at his father, but Lord Tywin was watching the king.

{The pie is cut and served, and, you know…]

 

[Lollygag]

14 minutes ago, Ygrain said:

Lol to the bolded

I don't recall ever getting wine in my eyes but mere water is pretty unpleasant, so I never considered as anything out of the ordinary.

I cannot check now, isn't the wine mentioned as strong?

That readers have to question the effect of wine in the eyes (meaning it’s not self-apparent) makes it either a curious choice on the part of GRRM, or a screw up. On a personal level, I guess it depends on how sensitive your eyes are. I apparently have eyeballs of steel but I know others do not.

I can’t find “strong” in the chapter nor do I recall reading the wine described as strong using other words. But I can’t imagine that you’d serve strong wine over a 77-course meal where everyone's locked in unless your goal is to have the wedding reception turn into this well before half-way through the meal. Pretty bad party planning. Or maybe good depending on how you see it. 

 

 

[the trees have eyes]

It's simple.  If you have ever opened a can of lager and had some spray into your eyes you'll know it stings.  If you never have then open a bottle of wine, pour it into a bowl and upend all of it it over your head (I recommend doing this over the bath or in the shower) and see how it affects you.

I have to admit I don't get why Tyion's eyes stinging is somehow suspicious.  GRRM expects this to be obvious to the reader not a puzzle or a clue.

[Shouldve Taken The Black]

12 minutes ago, the trees have eyes said:

If you never have then open a bottle of wine, pour it into a bowl and upend all of it it over your head (I recommend doing this over the bath or in the shower) and see how it affects you.

Everyone please film yourselves doing this and share it on here.

We really don't get enough practical homework!

Next assignment - try and strangle yourself like Brandon to see if it's actually possible. 

[Light a wight tonight]

7 hours ago, Ygrain said:

 

7 hours ago, Ygrain said:

I agree that the big picture has already been hammered out and that the interview doesn't leave a single shadow of doubt about 'whodunnit' but I believe there are details which haven't been revealed yet. As @Lollygag pointed out, there is too much emphasis on the various sizes and heights, which would lead to the conclusion that Olenna was too short to reach the chalice and needed someone to do it for her. Also, there is the testimony of Taena Merryweather, where we don't know if she was trying to ingratiate herself with Cersei, or if someone (LF) paid her to frame Tyrion.

There are Garlan and Leonette sitting beside Tyrion and Sansa who can easily drop the "pellet with the poison" into the wine. This is a Tyrrell family project, after all. The go-ahead signal has been posited as Lady Olenna stating that she hasn't heard Rains of Castamere in at least an hour. The timing is delicate, as you don't want to kill Marg by accident.

I'm not sure that Lady Taena's motivation is important, though it might be interesting to know. She has to be spying for someone, but would that be LF, Varys, or the Tyrrells? 

[Kandrax]

Main problem with theory "Tyrion was the target" is Sansa's hairnet, because it would be hard to not notice an amethyst on a piece of pie.

[Red Man Racey]

On ‎2‎/‎23‎/‎2018 at 0:50 PM, Bernie Mac said:

From her first POV chapter in AFFC

"Forever. See that they sleep forever, ser. I will not suffer guards to sleep on watch." He is in the walls. He killed Father as he killed Mother, as he killed Joff. The dwarf would come for her as well, the queen knew, just as the old woman had promised her in the dimness of that tent.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Tyrion sold Myrcella to the Dornishmen, made one of her sons his hostage, and murdered the other. And when Lord Tywin returned to King's Landing . . .

 

If it was a failed attempt on Tyrion by Cersei then she is the type who would blame Tyrion for not eating the pie that she had intended for him thereby "allowing" Joffrey to eat said poisoned pie and die.

That being said, I don't think that it was Cersei because the Baelish/Olenna plot targeting Joffrey is much neater and pretty much as confirmed as it can get as @Prince of the North points out.

[Dorian Martell's son]

1 hour ago, John Suburbs said:

Timewise, yes. If you drank a straight shot of ammonia, would it burn you instantly? If you poured it into a large glass of water and drank that, would it still burn you instantly but not as badly, or would it take a few minutes to reconcentrate in your throat and then burn you? If you placed a tiny drop of ammonia into a large glass of water, would that burn you instantly, if at all, or would it also take a few minutes and then come back and burn you. Simple, basic scientific principle: dilution does not delay the attack of a contact poison like the strangler, it merely weakens it.

And GRRM personally gave you the rundown on the mechanics of how the strangler works? Got it. 

1 hour ago, John Suburbs said:

Apparently they don't, considering neither Lady O nor Margaery know a thing about what Joffrey has said or done until Sansa explains it all to them. And no, Littlefinger did not say anything to the Tyrells about the king's proclivities; he was the one singing his praises while his men were telling the truth. So apparently it was on his word and his word alone that they agreed to the match.

 You make a ton of assumption based on a teenage girl's POV. Why would you assume that the Tyrells first inquiry into Joff's nature was with sansa?  The whole court had seen Joff abuse sansa. Olenna is not new at this game thing 

23 hours ago, John Suburbs said:

If nothing else bothers you about the wine, this ought to at least give you pause. Where do you get the idea that Lady Olenna Tyrell is this utterly naïve?

Margary was in on it. That is why she wouldn't drink from the cup. The game of thrones is a family affair. Ned didn't realize that and he died 

23 hours ago, John Suburbs said:

So you don't think part of the Tyrell plan was to wait until Tyrion became cupbearer first? The idea was to poison him at any old time using the very chalice that the Tyrells gave as a gift with no one there to take the fall? And this plan makes perfect sense to Lady Olenna, who has no idea who among a thousand people might spot someone reaching to the top of a three-foot chalice just before the king drops dead? Honestly, to paraphrase Tyrion, what kind of imbecile would intentionally create such a difficult obstacle for themselves when their entire family will likely face the block if they fail?

 Again, the whole family was in on it.  Tyrion being cupbearer matters little. Cersei would blame him no matter what. I

23 hours ago, John Suburbs said:

Come on, I can tell you are a smart guy. Put yourself in Lady Olenna's head. Why would she intentionally make things more difficult for herself, and choose this particular time to do it? Does she think Margaery is not going to survive the night with Joffrey? If not, then why would it not make more sense to wait until she has born the next heir to the Iron Throne (or two), and then remove Joffrey so that she can rule as regent? Wouldn't ruling in their own right within a year or two be a far better outcome for the Tyrells than trying to influence Tommen when he ascends the throne five years from now?

 you are also a smart guy, so you should know that the Tyrells are not willing to gamble on the safety of Marg to wait until a kid was born. That would look majorly suspicious. Also, there is no guarantee an heir would be quick, and even if there was an heir, why would the Tyrells be named regent? Cersei and all the lannister strength are already in King's landing.  It seems a far better outcome to eliminate the known terrile king and replace him with a far more tractable 10 year old. Olenna and co. are playing the long game. 

On 2/25/2018 at 11:05 AM, John Suburbs said:

When I do see errors in arguments and ideas, either textually or logically, I point them out. I don't just fall back on "stop ignoring what's written in the books and making things up."

It isn't a fall back. it is what happens. All the time. 

On 2/25/2018 at 11:05 AM, John Suburbs said:

When I do see errors in arguments and ideas, either textually or logically, I point them out. I don't just fall back on "stop ignoring what's written in the books and making things up."

Many secrets have yet to be revealed, as Martin himself has said, very clearly and very plainly. Many things that have been written in the books have turned out to be false, and many truths are unwritten until, suddenly, they become written and we all say "ah, so that's how it all makes sense."

So, yeah, I see problems with Cersei being the poisoner, either accidentally or intentionally, and Illyrio hiring the catspaw (although Illyrio supporting Littlefinger and the Littlefinger putting the idea in Joffrey's head to kill a Stark? Both of those are possibilities). But heck, to believe the wine you have to ignore the book and make things up over and over again, so try practicing what you preach friend.

The absurdity of this statement is immense. Nice one. You truly do this forum justice

 

On 2/25/2018 at 11:12 AM, John Suburbs said:

Aspirin is absorbed into the stomach, passed to the bloodstream and builds up in the affected area. This is a completely different process than putting poison directly onto the affected tissue. Same with anesthesia: absorbed into the lungs and passed into the bloodstream. You don't apply anesthetics directly to the brain.

See my ammonia analogy above. You can swap out any other contact poison: bleach, acid, poison ivy...

So, was the discussion of the poison vector in conversation or text, because if it was text, I would like to read it