Spattered and Caked. Big Walder Killed Little Walder

[John Suburbs]

On ‎12‎/‎16‎/‎2016 at 2:29 AM, Tianzi said:

I never thought about it, but now I'm completely convinced. I think most everything has already been said, so only a few remarks:

- BW being 'made of a different stuff' from his cousin seems to suggest to the reader that he is somewhat a 'decent' Frey. I think he is different from LW in a way like Roose is different from Ramsay.

- I think him slipping that he knows that Manderly killed his cousins is meant to hint where to direct suspicions. He then is smart enough to point the White Harbour men as the potential suspects who taught his cousin to play dice.

- I don't really think he does this out of a desire to move up on the succession ladder. I'd take it further. Discussing how he would kill his cousins if he were Wyman Manderly, he not only expresses being ok with killing as a method - he mainly shows he is thinking as a lord already. He sees LW is a little psycho, and that the responsible thing to do is to deal with him before he becomes a big psycho.This also fits the mini-Roose - mini-Ramsay parallel between the two. BW can observe how much of a liability Roose's bastard is to him. He can see LW being this liability to his clan in not so far future. And Roose can't get rid of his only son, but there's a lot of Freys, they're expandable...

Still doesn't explain why he doesn't bother to remove his bloody gloves before he walks into the hall and, cool as a cucumber, tells a bald-faced lie to two of the most vicious lords in the realm whos handiwork BW himself retrieved from the dungeons at the Dreadfort and is now sitting in that very same hall.

[John Suburbs]

23 hours ago, velo-knight said:

Pretty in keeping with the boy who told his peers, including his family member higher in the succession than he, that he would be Lord one day; and suggested murdering his relatives.

Wyman Manderly doesn't care. He actually did murder some other Freys, and everyone knows it. While he has no idea who murdered this one, he knows he's unlikely to pin anyone else down as the suspect, and attempting to implicate BW might look like he's shifting the blame from himself. All he needs to do is A.) not confess outright or give Roose a reason to punish him; B.) not die immediately. Beyond that, he already plans on betraying and killing at least the adult Freys present - and ultimately the Boltons, too. Even if Wyman knew exactly who did it, why should he act now? He could instead wait, bide his time, gather evidence against BW for this and other crimes, use BW on his / Stannis's / Rickon's behalf against the Freys in intrigues, and then reveal his evidence to the realm. Just more proof of dishonor from a house he despises, and given their infamy, adding "kinslayer" to the list of crimes associated with the Freys will not be difficult to sell once the Frey's fortunes begin to turn.

Well, people can be illogical and emotional; crimes of passion do exist. Beyond that, I think most of the players in the BW theory act logically considering their interests.

He is not acting illogical or emotional, nor has he ever during all the time's we've seen him. This is the same problem as above: a faulty assumption at the start -- that spatter can only be caused by a fresh wound -- leads to increasingly bizarre behavior across a number of characters which can only be explained by increasingly specious reasoning.

Rather than reassess the one assumption at the beginning, we just blithely rewrite characters, motivations, simple logical thought processes, all the while grasping at one-off comments and turns of phrase from text written decades ago, all in order to feel we've penetrated another GRRM mystery.

Sorry, but you've all be had.

[velo-knight]

Just now, John Suburbs said:

He is not acting illogical or emotional, nor has he ever during all the time's we've seen him. This is the same problem as above: a faulty assumption at the start -- that spatter can only be caused by a fresh wound -- leads to increasingly bizarre behavior across a number of characters which can only be explained by increasingly specious reasoning.

 I was responding to your quote about illogical and emotional behavior. While BW's motives could be emotional, they're more likely cold calculation.

Just now, John Suburbs said:

Rather than reassess the one assumption at the beginning, we just blithely rewrite characters, motivations, simple logical thought processes, all the while grasping at one-off comments and turns of phrase from text written decades ago, all in order to feel we've penetrated another GRRM mystery.

Sorry, but you've all be had.

Well, now I'm persuaded!

... not every mystery has to be grand or convoluted. BW benefited from LW's death. BW was noted to dislike Little Walder, and his behavior is suspicious. Lastly, BW spends considerable time in multiple books discussing the inheritance of the twins, despite being seemingly impossibly far from the succession, and shows little to no sense of sadness at the deaths of his family. Many of the people intelligent enough to notice BW's bloodied gloves and chest have reasons not to accuse him, which is a point I've seen no response to, and Ser Stupid is both aptly named and already determined to blame Manderly.

[John Suburbs]

13 minutes ago, velo-knight said:

 Well, now I'm persuaded!

Lol, glad I've turned you. Welcome to the dark side.

[Clegane'sPup]

Anyone wanna take a walk down memory lane?

In 2013     http://asoiaf.westeros.org/index.php?/topic/98614-who-killed-little-walder/

In 2012    http://asoiaf.westeros.org/index.php?/topic/68838-any-theories-on-who-killed-little-walder/

 

[Tianzi]

5 hours ago, John Suburbs said:

Still doesn't explain why he doesn't bother to remove his bloody gloves before he walks into the hall and, cool as a cucumber, tells a bald-faced lie to two of the most vicious lords in the realm whos handiwork BW himself retrieved from the dungeons at the Dreadfort and is now sitting in that very same hall.

I wasn't trying to explain that.

But while we're at it, if his looks doesn't convince even you and some of the readers that he is the killer, it's not that weird that it doesn't convince the other lords, right? The atmosphere is heavy with hostility, everyone is at each other's throat and Big Walder quite obviously isn't the Ghost of Winterfell, so he easily could count on nobody suspecting him. And well, he is not a master of crime, but a clever kid. It's also not that strange that he has confidence in in his lie. People older than 9 yo are known to say far less convincing lies, completely overconfident that everybody will believe them. I'd say that BW gambled, not aware how dangerous it really was, and got lucky.

On 16.12.2016 at 7:15 PM, velo-knight said:

Yes, but other people don't need to die for you to become President. We see Robb and Jon fighting about it once as children, but we don't otherwise see Jon speculating idly about murder of his family, acting nonchalantly when they die, and making succession the first issue at each point. If we did, then Cat's fears about Jon might be grounded in something real.

 

On 16.12.2016 at 7:20 PM, OtherFromAnotherMother said:

Good point. And I love counters based on the text. So thanks for that!

However, remember the context when BW says he will be Lord. One of the times is when discussing succession. The other is also when discussing succession but after learning that their uncle had just died! To me, this is a lot different than saying, "I am Lord of Winterfell" when doing swordplay in the yard.

 

Well, Big Walder is a Frey and grew in a somewhat different enviroment. I agree that he is creepily comfortable with the idea of killing (then again, given the circumstances, who can blame him? I'd still say that he is far less damaged than, say, Arya), but 'One day I will be Lord!' is probably what all Frey children say, hell, the very play in 'the lord of crossing' is based on this wish. I just don't think that BW is set on a murder quest to clear his path and killed LW motivated by that. I suspect that it could be a spur of the moment, something petty, or a more general fear of his cousin, as BW was watching what LW's growing into. And let's be honest here, if LW was to be the second Ramsay, BW did literally everyone a favour.

[OtherFromAnotherMother]

5 hours ago, John Suburbs said:

Text? Where is the text that says BW then killed LW?

You are twisting words. I never said BW killed LW was in the text. I said, "My reasons for thinking BW killed LW is based on evidence from the text (previous words by BW and blood mentioned on him). What evidence from the text do you have that he dug at LW?"

5 hours ago, John Suburbs said:

What text is there that Hosteen did any digging? He has snow on his legs because he just carried the body across the yard.

You're right. There is no direct text which says he dug the body out, but considering he is carrying the body and has snow on him and no one else is mentioned with snow on them I think it is a reasonable conclusion. But I suppose you can disagree. Where is the text evidence that even suggests that BW may have dug?

6 hours ago, John Suburbs said:

Theon -- who is most definitely not an accomplished wordsmith -- would not describe it as spatter. 

We are not hearing Theon's inner thoughts in this instance. We are sering what he sees. 

Quote

Little Walder, thought Theon. The big one. He glanced at Rowan. There are six of them, he remembered. Any of them could have done this. But the washerwoman felt his eyes. “This was no work of ours,” she said.

Italicized words are inner thoughts. When we read about the blood they are not italicized. 

 

6 hours ago, John Suburbs said:

Please post a link to this "physical science" you claim.

You have this backwards. You are the one trying to claim an unlikely scenario is possible (BW getting blood spatter on himself through digging in snow at the deceased body). This is what needs to be proven. I am claiming the blood spatter is from stabbing LW. I don't think I need to post links as to how this would happen. You already know that this is possible. 

6 hours ago, John Suburbs said:

You start with an assumption

If the assumption you think I am making is that BW killed LW it is an assumption based on the text (blood and discussion). I wouldn't describe it as an assumption though, more of a hypothesis (for lack of a better word).

6 hours ago, John Suburbs said:

increasingly bizarre behavior of virtually everyone involved you resort to increasingly bizarre reasoning to explain it:

In my opinion their behavior is not bizarre. We have Theon see the blood (as others might as well) and he immediately looks at the spearwives. He has a bias against the spearwives based on the other murders, just like many in the hall have a bias against Manderly because they think (know) he killed the other Freys. I don't see this as bizarre, especially when remembering it's Westeros 300 A.C. 

6 hours ago, John Suburbs said:

BW simply forgot or didn't notice his hands were all bloody, not even if he gets blood on everything he touches

Already been addressed several times.

6 hours ago, John Suburbs said:

BW is launching a plan that requires him to literally murder his way through dozens of Freys, including many grown fighting men, so he can be lord of the crossing.

I have never claimed BW is going to try to kill other Freys. I just think it is possible that succession is one of a few possible motivations for killing LW.

6 hours ago, John Suburbs said:

He is in fact not the reasonably rational, thoughtful person we've see in the text but a psycho megalomaniac who thinks he can literally flaunt his guilt for all to see and still get away with murder.

Someone else had this idea.

6 hours ago, John Suburbs said:

Hosteen, Manderly, Ramsey, Roose and everyone else in the room either can't see this blood -- only Theon, who is sitting across the room-- or are complete idiots who cannot make the connection between a dead body and someone with inexplicable blood all over their hands. This includes two of the most sharp-eyed lords in the realm -- one who notices when things are amiss if you say my lord instead of m'lord.

Already addressed. To be fair though, we don't know what Roose is thinking. Hosteen attacks Manderly right away then Manderlys and Freys are sent out. Not a lot of time to observe and assess. We don't know what Roose knows or is thinking.

6 hours ago, John Suburbs said:

that everybody, including Roose and Ramsey, are so itching for a fight amongst themselves that they simply ignore BW's obvious guilt and start drawing swords.

I don't think the guilt is that obvious to the people in the hall, only the reader. Don't you think Hosteen and Manderly men are itching for a fight though? They do fight rather quickly, no?

6 hours ago, John Suburbs said:

As I said earlier, a hypothesis is fine, but when it leads to all sorts of inconsistencies with actual events, then it's time to rethink your assumptions.

What assumptions are you speaking of?

Have you said yet who you think killed LW?

[OtherFromAnotherMother]

1 hour ago, Tianzi said:

Well, Big Walder is a Frey and grew in a somewhat different enviroment. I agree that he is creepily comfortable with the idea of killing (then again, given the circumstances, who can blame him? I'd still say that he is far less damaged than, say, Arya), but 'One day I will be Lord!' is probably what all Frey children say, hell, the very play in 'the lord of crossing' is based on this wish. I just don't think that BW is set on a murder quest to clear his path and killed LW motivated by that. I suspect that it could be a spur of the moment, something petty, or a more general fear of his cousin, as BW was watching what LW's growing into. And let's be honest here, if LW was to be the second Ramsay, BW did literally everyone a favour.

I don't think he is on a murder quest either. I just think succession is one possible motivation along with others, or a combination. He is 9 and as outlined by the Frey succession line, it's not impossible for him to be Lord.

Personally, I see BW's "I will be Lord" declarations differently than saying things while playing swords or games. Especially the time right after they find out their uncle died. 

[Wrl6199]

8 minutes ago, OtherFromAnotherMother said:

You are twisting words. I never said BW killed LW was in the text. I said, "My reasons for thinking BW killed LW is based on evidence from the text (previous words by BW and blood mentioned on him). What evidence from the text do you have that he dug at LW?"

You're right. There is no direct text which says he dug the body out, but considering he is carrying the body and has snow on him and no one else is mentioned with snow on them I think it is a reasonable conclusion. But I suppose you can disagree. Where is the text evidence that even suggests that BW may have dug?

We are not hearing Theon's inner thoughts in this instance. We are sering what he sees. 

Italicized words are inner thoughts. When we read about the blood they are not italicized. 

 

You have this backwards. You are the one trying to claim an unlikely scenario is possible (BW getting blood spatter on himself through digging in snow at the deceased body). This is what needs to be proven. I am claiming the blood spatter is from stabbing LW. I don't think I need to post links as to how this would happen. You already know that this is possible. 

If the assumption you think I am making is that BW killed LW it is an assumption based on the text (blood and discussion). I wouldn't describe it as an assumption though, more of a hypothesis (for lack of a better word).

In my opinion their behavior is not bizarre. We have Theon see the blood (as others might as well) and he immediately looks at the spearwives. He has a bias against the spearwives based on the other murders, just like many in the hall have a bias against Manderly because they think (know) he killed the other Freys. I don't see this as bizarre, especially when remembering it's Westeros 300 A.C. 

Already been addressed several times.

I have never claimed BW is going to try to kill other Freys. I just think it is possible that succession is one of a few possible motivations for killing LW.

Someone else had this idea.

Already addressed. To be fair though, we don't know what Roose is thinking. Hosteen attacks Manderly right away then Manderlys and Freys are sent out. Not a lot of time to observe and assess. We don't know what Roose knows or is thinking.

I don't think the guilt is that obvious to the people in the hall, only the reader. Don't you think Hosteen and Manderly men are itching for a fight though? They do fight rather quickly, no?

What assumptions are you speaking of?

Have you said yet who you think killed LW?

When you were talking about how we dont know what ruse is thinking it made me wonder something. Do you think that we will have any new poss. I mean i know George RR martin confirmed that there wont be any new prov characters in the winds of winter but do you think there will be any in a dream of spring.

[OtherFromAnotherMother]

6 minutes ago, Wrl6199 said:

When you were talking about how we dont know what ruse is thinking it made me wonder something. Do you think that we will have any new poss. I mean i know George RR martin confirmed that there wont be any new prov characters in the winds of winter but do you think there will be any in a dream of spring.

Haha. I have no idea. A Roose POV would be awesome though! So cold and calculated. 

I want the leaches so bad I can feel them. Monster worms turning dark and plump as they wriggle and pulsate.

Who do you think we might have?

[Wrl6199]

1 hour ago, OtherFromAnotherMother said:

Haha. I have no idea. A Roose POV would be awesome though! So cold and calculated. 

I want the leaches so bad I can feel them. Monster worms turning dark and plump as they wriggle and pulsate.

Who do you think we might have?

I'm surprised that they dont have a Stannis prov yet. That would be interesting. Like we have one for Melisande but not Stannis?

[John Suburbs]

On ‎12‎/‎17‎/‎2016 at 5:39 PM, Tianzi said:

I wasn't trying to explain that.

But while we're at it, if his looks doesn't convince even you and some of the readers that he is the killer, it's not that weird that it doesn't convince the other lords, right? The atmosphere is heavy with hostility, everyone is at each other's throat and Big Walder quite obviously isn't the Ghost of Winterfell, so he easily could count on nobody suspecting him. And well, he is not a master of crime, but a clever kid. It's also not that strange that he has confidence in in his lie. People older than 9 yo are known to say far less convincing lies, completely overconfident that everybody will believe them. I'd say that BW gambled, not aware how dangerous it really was, and got lucky.

So that was the plan? instead of just getting rid of the evidence so no one could suspect him at all, he is going to walk into the hall with the victim's blood on him and hope that people would never dream in a million years that someone would be that colossally stupid? If he is so clever, why would he gamble like that when he could have taken no gamble at all by simply getting rid of his bloody clothes?

[John Suburbs]

On ‎12‎/‎17‎/‎2016 at 6:51 PM, OtherFromAnotherMother said:

You are twisting words. I never said BW killed LW was in the text. I said, "My reasons for thinking BW killed LW is based on evidence from the text (previous words by BW and blood mentioned on him). What evidence from the text do you have that he dug at LW?"

You're right. There is no direct text which says he dug the body out, but considering he is carrying the body and has snow on him and no one else is mentioned with snow on them I think it is a reasonable conclusion. But I suppose you can disagree. Where is the text evidence that even suggests that BW may have dug?

We are not hearing Theon's inner thoughts in this instance. We are sering what he sees. 

Italicized words are inner thoughts. When we read about the blood they are not italicized. 

Sorry, your reasoning is based on assumptions you've made from circumstantial evidence in the text, namely, that only blood from a fresh wound can spatter.

The evidence, also circumstantial, that BW did the digging is on his gloves.

We are receiving the information the way Theon perceived it. It is described as spatter because that is the way Theon saw it. It is in no way a definitive explanation as to how it got there.

 

On ‎12‎/‎17‎/‎2016 at 6:51 PM, OtherFromAnotherMother said:

You have this backwards. You are the one trying to claim an unlikely scenario is possible (BW getting blood spatter on himself through digging in snow at the deceased body). This is what needs to be proven. I am claiming the blood spatter is from stabbing LW. I don't think I need to post links as to how this would happen. You already know that this is possible. 

If the assumption you think I am making is that BW killed LW it is an assumption based on the text (blood and discussion). I wouldn't describe it as an assumption though, more of a hypothesis (for lack of a better word).

You're the one who says "physical science" is on your side, and you are the one who says spatter cannot come from flinging bloody snow. So the burden is on you to prove your contention, since you are the one expressing absolute, scientific certainty. I've never said your theory is impossible, or even implausible, just that it is not the only possibility.

Assumption, hypothesis, whatever. Neither is proof of anything.

On ‎12‎/‎17‎/‎2016 at 6:51 PM, OtherFromAnotherMother said:

In my opinion their behavior is not bizarre. We have Theon see the blood (as others might as well) and he immediately looks at the spearwives. He has a bias against the spearwives based on the other murders, just like many in the hall have a bias against Manderly because they think (know) he killed the other Freys. I don't see this as bizarre, especially when remembering it's Westeros 300 A.C. 

Somebody kills his cousin with a knife and butchers the body like a pig and then walks around with the blood on his hands for hours, and you don't think this is bizarre?

A body is brought into a room and his cousin is standing there with bloody hands, with no plausible explanation as to how it got there, and everyone in the room suspects everyone but they kid with the blood? Nothing unusual there?

People use a brutal murder to fight out their personal grudges and throw their fighting force into disarray while the enemy is outside the gates, and that's not bizarre either? Not even the sharp-eyed lords who want to keep the peace care that the real killer is standing right there throwing lies in their faces?

Is there no one in this castle capable of rational thought?

On ‎12‎/‎17‎/‎2016 at 6:51 PM, OtherFromAnotherMother said:

I have never claimed BW is going to try to kill other Freys. I just think it is possible that succession is one of a few possible motivations for killing LW.

How can succession be a motive if he isn't planning to kill the umpteen other Freys that stand between him and the Twins?

On ‎12‎/‎17‎/‎2016 at 6:51 PM, OtherFromAnotherMother said:

Already addressed. To be fair though, we don't know what Roose is thinking. Hosteen attacks Manderly right away then Manderlys and Freys are sent out. Not a lot of time to observe and assess. We don't know what Roose knows or is thinking.

Plenty of time to observe and assess. The kid with the blood gloves is literally pointing the finger at someone else, and that someone else and both lords in the room should be able to see the bloody gloves as easily as Theon.

On ‎12‎/‎17‎/‎2016 at 6:51 PM, OtherFromAnotherMother said:

I don't think the guilt is that obvious to the people in the hall, only the reader. Don't you think Hosteen and Manderly men are itching for a fight though? They do fight rather quickly, no?

That's my main point. Not just that the guilt isn't obvious to the people in the hall, but that no one seems to even have the slightest suspicion that little bloody gloves is the killer. That's because what is obvious is the actual truth: he got that way digging up the body.

Yes, they fight rather quickly, but why is Manderly allowing himself to be accused, and then nonchalantly finishing his meal, wiping his greasy lips, make lame quips about the Freys, when all he has to do is say, "me, what about your kin with the blood all over his hands?"

On ‎12‎/‎17‎/‎2016 at 6:51 PM, OtherFromAnotherMother said:

What assumptions are you speaking of?

The assumption that spatter only comes from a fresh wound. The assumption that LW either doesn't know or doesn't care that his cousin's blood is caked on his hands. The assumption that the men in the hall would rather fight out their personal grudges than find the actual killer. The assumption that every single one of them, even the cut-throat lords of Winterfell and Dreadfort, are too stupid to connect a dead body and someone with inexplicable blood on their hands. And the assumption that after putting the victim's blood on the killer's hands, that GRRM would be amateurish enough to then send a "secret signal" to only the smartest of readers by putting spatter on his chest and cloak.

On ‎12‎/‎17‎/‎2016 at 6:51 PM, OtherFromAnotherMother said:

Have you said yet who you think killed LW?

Still unknown. It could be BW, but it could also be the HM, or it may very well have been a White Harbor man who lowed LW money.

[John Suburbs]

On ‎12‎/‎17‎/‎2016 at 6:57 PM, OtherFromAnotherMother said:

I don't think he is on a murder quest either. I just think succession is one possible motivation along with others, or a combination. He is 9 and as outlined by the Frey succession line, it's not impossible for him to be Lord.

Personally, I see BW's "I will be Lord" declarations differently than saying things while playing swords or games. Especially the time right after they find out their uncle died. 

 

On ‎12‎/‎17‎/‎2016 at 5:39 PM, Tianzi said:

Well, Big Walder is a Frey and grew in a somewhat different enviroment. I agree that he is creepily comfortable with the idea of killing (then again, given the circumstances, who can blame him? I'd still say that he is far less damaged than, say, Arya), but 'One day I will be Lord!' is probably what all Frey children say, hell, the very play in 'the lord of crossing' is based on this wish. I just don't think that BW is set on a murder quest to clear his path and killed LW motivated by that. I suspect that it could be a spur of the moment, something petty, or a more general fear of his cousin, as BW was watching what LW's growing into. And let's be honest here, if LW was to be the second Ramsay, BW did literally everyone a favour.

FYI, here is the list of all who stand between BW and the Twins:

His father, Ser Jammos

His uncles: Lame Lothar, Ser Raymond, Ser Danwell, Ser Hosteen, Ser Aenys (possibly deceased now, but not at the time of the murder), Ser Emmon.

His cousins: Robert, Malwyn, Tywin and Jaime Frey, sons of Raymund; Sandor Frey, son of Geremy; Alesander and Brademar Frey, sons of Symond; Arwood Frey, son of Hosteen; Tytos Frey, son of Jared; Lionel, Tyos and Red Walder Frey, sons of Emmon; Walton Frey, son of Stevron (and depending on whether news has reached Winterfell yet, he would have to add Ryman to his calculations as well).

His nephews: Androw and Alyn Frey, sons of Arwood; Zachary Frey, son of Tytos; Robert and Jonos Frey, sons of Rhaegar; Tywin and Willem, sons of Cleon; Edwyn and Black Walder, sons of Ryman (the news of Peter Pymple's death might not have reached Winterfell either); Steffon and Bryan Frey, sons of Walton.

I think we can safely rule out that BW killed his cousin as part of a plan to some day inherit the Twins.

 

 

[OtherFromAnotherMother]

49 minutes ago, John Suburbs said:

Sorry, your reasoning is based on assumptions you've made from circumstantial evidence in the text, namely, that only blood from a fresh wound can spatter.

No apology necessary friend.

Based on the author's use of the term blood spatter, yes I think blood spatter would only be used when describing a scene involving a fresh wound. However, this is not the only evidence from the text with which I reach my most likely conclusion (although it is the most damning).

53 minutes ago, John Suburbs said:

The evidence, also circumstantial, that BW did the digging is on his gloves.

Extremely unlikely, IMO. BW would have to do a lot of things which have no backing within the text. 1) He would have to dig quickly after the killing. 2) Somehow get spatter on his chest by doing this. 3)Not tell anyone about his discovery/digging for an extended period of time. 

57 minutes ago, John Suburbs said:

We are receiving the information the way Theon perceived it. It is described as spatter because that is the way Theon saw it. It is in no way a definitive explanation as to how it got there.

If we can't take what our POV's are seeing as what they are actually seeing this would be an extremely difficult book series to read. Do you have any other examples where are POV's are not seeing what George is describing to us? Not someone's inner thoughts, of course, but just what they are observing.

No, its not a definite explanation of how it got there. But it is an indication that BW was standing near an area where someone was spattering out blood or someone went out of there way to make it look like he was (unlikely, IMO). 

1 hour ago, John Suburbs said:

You're the one who says "physical science" is on your side, and you are the one who says spatter cannot come from flinging bloody snow. So the burden is on you to prove your contention, since you are the one expressing absolute, scientific certainty. I've never said your theory is impossible, or even implausible, just that it is not the only possibility.

I'm very confused here. I think we can agree that if any random person has blood spatter on his chest it is much more likely that it came from spattering out of blood, rather than digging through snow next to a deceased body, yes? If so, it would be up to the person claiming the less likely scenario to be able to prove that it could actually happen. Otherwise you could say he got the spatter on his chest from a bird flying over him with the bloody flux and shat directly onto his chest. And I would have to prove this could not happen rather than you proving it could?

An extreme example: If person A tells person B that eating snake eggs will make you fly, it would be up to person A to prove that this is true. Person B would not have to prove that it is NOT true. 

I do not believe someone can get blood spatter on their body from digging through snow at a deceased body. I am not 100% sure it is not possible but probably 95%. I am not going to ask for proof, but if you find some I will read it with an open mind. 

Side note: I actually went outside on Sunday and poured some lukewarm V8 juice in the snow then flung it at an old white t shirt just to see what would happen. The mix hardly stuck at all (could be the weather conditions, t shirt material) but where it did stick it made more of a wet, pinkish smudge on the shirt. Obviously different conditions and situations may have different results so do with this what you want. I'm such a nerd...

1 hour ago, John Suburbs said:

Assumption, hypothesis, whatever. Neither is proof of anything.

There is "proof" in very little in these books. IMO, George wants us to figure things out on our own.

1 hour ago, John Suburbs said:

Somebody kills his cousin with a knife and butchers the body like a pig and then walks around with the blood on his hands for hours, and you don't think this is bizarre?

Ahh. I thought you were talking about the reaction by the people in the hall. Yes, BW's behavior is bizarre. I would say anytime murder is committed behavior is bizarre. 

1 hour ago, John Suburbs said:

A body is brought into a room and his cousin is standing there with bloody hands, with no plausible explanation as to how it got there, and everyone in the room suspects everyone but they kid with the blood? Nothing unusual there?

I've responded to this a few times with the way Theon reacts to suspect the spearwives even though he sees the blood on BW. IMO, this tells us that despite seeing the blood people may suspect who (whom?) they want to suspect. In 2016 Earth, yes very unusual. Westeros, maybe not so much.

1 hour ago, John Suburbs said:

People use a brutal murder to fight out their personal grudges and throw their fighting force into disarray while the enemy is outside the gates, and that's not bizarre either? Not even the sharp-eyed lords who want to keep the peace care that the real killer is standing right there throwing lies in their faces?

Is there no one in this castle capable of rational thought?

If you were Roose, what would you have done when Hosteen attacks Manderly? 

1 hour ago, John Suburbs said:

Plenty of time to observe and assess. The kid with the blood gloves is literally pointing the finger at someone else, and that someone else and both lords in the room should be able to see the bloody gloves as easily as Theon.

Exactly. And even though we know Theon sees it, even he does not suspect BW. He still thinks it was the spearwives.

1 hour ago, John Suburbs said:

Yes, they fight rather quickly, but why is Manderly allowing himself to be accused, and then nonchalantly finishing his meal, wiping his greasy lips, make lame quips about the Freys, when all he has to do is say, "me, what about your kin with the blood all over his hands?"

That would have been a smarter reaction by Manderly. He loves making quips about Freys though, hard to pass on those opportunities. 

I doubt he thought Hosteen was going to slice up his poor, saggy necks. Who knows though? I'm stil open to the possibility that Lord Too Fat may be on a "kamikaze" mission of sorts. But that is for a different thread. Maybe he was thinking Roose would send the Freys and/or Manderlys outside and this was his ticket out? Maybe he knew about BW's killing? Maybe he was too busy eating that he didn't see the blood? I don't know. He probably should have pointed out BW, if he saw it.

1 hour ago, John Suburbs said:

The assumption that spatter only comes from a fresh wound. The assumption that LW either doesn't know or doesn't care that his cousin's blood is caked on his hands. The assumption that the men in the hall would rather fight out their personal grudges than find the actual killer. The assumption that every single one of them, even the cut-throat lords of Winterfell and Dreadfort, are too stupid to connect a dead body and someone with inexplicable blood on their hands. And the assumption that after putting the victim's blood on the killer's hands, that GRRM would be amateurish enough to then send a "secret signal" to only the smartest of readers by putting spatter on his chest and cloak.

It doesn't necessarily have to be from a fresh wound. But fresh (undried, unfrozen) blood in general. There is one instance where George used "spatter" to describe Daario dropping blood on the floor from blood dripping from this sleeve. They do, in fact, fight rather than try to find the killer, so I wouldn't really call that an assumption. I don't think its that they are too stupid, but that they already suspect who they suspect, and they don't know what the reader knows about blood spatter. I don't think this is "amateurish" I just think George wants us to know that BW did it because the LW murder is not a huge event in the course of the 7 books. Did you think Gravedigger=the Hound was amateurish as well?

 

1 hour ago, John Suburbs said:

Still unknown. It could be BW, but it could also be the HM, or it may very well have been a White Harbor man who lowed LW money.

Interesting.

This has been fun. Thanks for the discussion. I've learned way more about BW and LW then I ever imagined I would because of it. 

 

[OtherFromAnotherMother]

1 hour ago, John Suburbs said:

How can succession be a motive if he isn't planning to kill the umpteen other Freys that stand between him and the Twins?

Missed this earlier. I think I have been saying succession combined with other motivations, yes? Killing LW does put him closer. He could also be thinking that he is young and will outlive other Freys and they are in a war right now so others will die as well. What I interpret from the text is that BW also may have not liked what his cousin was becoming, another motivation factor.

[Suzanna Stormborn]

On 12/17/2016 at 8:54 PM, Wrl6199 said:

I'm surprised that they dont have a Stannis prov yet. That would be interesting. Like we have one for Melisande but not Stannis?

In tWo5K the 'king' never had a POV, it was always someone close to them. Stannis had Davos and later Mel, Robb had Catelyn, Joff had Cersei, Jaime and Tyrion, Balon had Theon and Renly had Brienne (but not til later, Renly really had no one).

[John Suburbs]

23 hours ago, OtherFromAnotherMother said:

No apology necessary friend.

Based on the author's use of the term blood spatter, yes I think blood spatter would only be used when describing a scene involving a fresh wound. However, this is not the only evidence from the text with which I reach my most likely conclusion (although it is the most damning).

Fair enough, but since you use the words "I think", I'll take that to mean we agree that this is an opinion, not a fact.

23 hours ago, OtherFromAnotherMother said:

Extremely unlikely, IMO. BW would have to do a lot of things which have no backing within the text. 1) He would have to dig quickly after the killing. 2) Somehow get spatter on his chest by doing this. 3)Not tell anyone about his discovery/digging for an extended period of time. 

I'm not sure I follow. Why would he have to dig quickly and not tell anyone? He could have started the digging only after the body had been discovered, after Hosteen had arrived on scene. We don't know how long the body has been there, how thoroughly frozen it was and how much blood may have seeped into the snow. Even though it appears to Theon to be frozen on the outside, we cannot rule out the possibility some wet blood remained in the body that spattered as BW shook it loose, or frozen blood in the snow had attached to his clothes during the digging, then melted to leave what look to him like spatter.

23 hours ago, OtherFromAnotherMother said:

If we can't take what our POV's are seeing as what they are actually seeing this would be an extremely difficult book series to read. Do you have any other examples where are POV's are not seeing what George is describing to us? Not someone's inner thoughts, of course, but just what they are observing.

No, its not a definite explanation of how it got there. But it is an indication that BW was standing near an area where someone was spattering out blood or someone went out of there way to make it look like he was (unlikely, IMO). 

Yes, this is exactly the challenge we face when we read Martin. Unlike a typical dispassionate narrator, a POV cannot give you the unvarnished truth -- only what the POV perceives to be the truth. The characters see what they see, but the conclusions they draw are often wrong: Theon sees a man called Abel, but his real name is Mance; Mel sees Arya approaching on a pale mare, but its really Alys... In this case, Theon is seeing exactly what GR describes, but as is clearly evident in the text he does not believe for a second that it was spatter caused by fresh blood, or else he would think BW was the killer. If Theon thinks spatter cannot be caused in any other way, then why does he immediately suspect the spearwives?

An indication is also not firm, conclusive proof. As I mentioned above, spatter, or, if you prefer, a spatter-like pattern, could be created by the digging out of the body, which may not be completely frozen.

23 hours ago, OtherFromAnotherMother said:

I'm very confused here. I think we can agree that if any random person has blood spatter on his chest it is much more likely that it came from spattering out of blood, rather than digging through snow next to a deceased body, yes? If so, it would be up to the person claiming the less likely scenario to be able to prove that it could actually happen. Otherwise you could say he got the spatter on his chest from a bird flying over him with the bloody flux and shat directly onto his chest. And I would have to prove this could not happen rather than you proving it could?

An extreme example: If person A tells person B that eating snake eggs will make you fly, it would be up to person A to prove that this is true. Person B would not have to prove that it is NOT true. 

I do not believe someone can get blood spatter on their body from digging through snow at a deceased body. I am not 100% sure it is not possible but probably 95%. I am not going to ask for proof, but if you find some I will read it with an open mind. 

 

Again, "much more likely" is not the same as "conclusively, definitively, without question." Since I am merely suggesting the possibility that BW is not the killer and that the blood could be from the dead body or the snow and you are arguing that it most certainly cannot, the burden of proof is up to the person taking the absolute position. 5,000 years of jurisprudence has led us to the concept of guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, and blood spatter that is "much more likely" from a fresh wound than another source does not meet that standard.

23 hours ago, OtherFromAnotherMother said:

Side note: I actually went outside on Sunday and poured some lukewarm V8 juice in the snow then flung it at an old white t shirt just to see what would happen. The mix hardly stuck at all (could be the weather conditions, t shirt material) but where it did stick it made more of a wet, pinkish smudge on the shirt. Obviously different conditions and situations may have different results so do with this what you want. I'm such a nerd...

 

Really? You did that? That's hilarious. Yes, V8 is not blood, and I expect the snow at Winterfell to be much more crystallized than snow in most climes this time of year -- unless you live in a polar region. Also, a t-shirt is cotton (and white, I presume?), whereas a medieval cloak and winter chest covering, a doublet or something, would be fur or leather or some such. And also note that Theon is seeing this from across the Great Hall, so perhaps on closer inspection it would have appeared less red than actual blood.

And again, I take issue with the idea that spatter can only mean teeny, tiny droplets of blood. The spatter could be fairly large, caused by pulling the still seeping body from the snow. Indeed, how could Theon see such tiny droplets from way across the hall?

On ‎12‎/‎19‎/‎2016 at 10:45 PM, OtherFromAnotherMother said:

There is "proof" in very little in these books. IMO, George wants us to figure things out on our own.

There are all kinds of things that are proven. Tyrion is a dwarf. Sansa is in the Vale with Littlefinger. Tommen sits the Iron Throne. There is a lot of opaqueness, however, and it is fun to try to figure them out. It starts with recognizing what you know for a fact and what you are assuming, and then determining if your assumptions conform to the text without having to come up with even more, increasingly spurious, assumptions.

In every instance where we have a mystery that is hinted at in the subtext -- not just with GRRM, but any decent author -- the correct answer invariably resolves the anomalies in the text. Why is nearly half the kingsguard sitting at the ToJ when they should be fighting for Rhaegar on the Trident or guarding the king in the capital? Answer: Jon is either the new crown prince or is in some way vitally important to Rhaegar, Aerys or both. Why does Cersei murder one hand when he figures out her children's parentage from records in a dusty, old book, but then freely admits her guilt when another hand does the same thing? Why would a knighted fighting man like Jaime resort to poison, a woman's/coward's/eunuch's weapon, to slay a foe? Answer: They didn't, it was Littlefinger.

In this case, we have the exact opposite: the subtextual solution you are proposing doesn't resolve anomalies in the text, it creates them. Virtually everyone involved starts behaving in a highly peculiar manner, starting with the killer and extending outward to an entire room of people who can see the obvious evidence of his guilt and not suspect a thing. Ultimately, this leads to dense, turgid writing because all of this now has to be explained further or else leave reader hanging. I contend there is nothing to resolve here. The answer is as clear as it appears to everyone involved: BW got bloody by recovering the body.

On ‎12‎/‎19‎/‎2016 at 10:45 PM, OtherFromAnotherMother said:

Ahh. I thought you were talking about the reaction by the people in the hall. Yes, BW's behavior is bizarre. I would say anytime murder is committed behavior is bizarre. 

I'm trying to imagine anyone, real or fictional, who wasn't a complete basket-case, walking around with their victim's blood on their hands for all to see, and then accusing someone else of the crime and thinking they could get away with it.

On ‎12‎/‎19‎/‎2016 at 10:45 PM, OtherFromAnotherMother said:

I've responded to this a few times with the way Theon reacts to suspect the spearwives even though he sees the blood on BW. IMO, this tells us that despite seeing the blood people may suspect who (whom?) they want to suspect. In 2016 Earth, yes very unusual. Westeros, maybe not so much.

No, not usual in Westeros -- not by a longshot. People are no smarter now then they were then. It's just that our analytical tools and our accumulation of knowledge is greater. Common sense has existed throughout the ages, and someone standing there with the victim's blood on them and no reasonable explanation as to how it got there is by default the prime suspect in any era. The salient factor here is that BW has a reasonable explanation.

On ‎12‎/‎19‎/‎2016 at 10:45 PM, OtherFromAnotherMother said:

If you were Roose, what would you have done when Hosteen attacks Manderly? 

Before the attack even came, I would simply ask BW, where did that blood come from? Everybody immediately stops talking when Roose speaks.

On ‎12‎/‎19‎/‎2016 at 10:45 PM, OtherFromAnotherMother said:

Exactly. And even though we know Theon sees it, even he does not suspect BW. He still thinks it was the spearwives.

Which simply creates yet another anomaly: if Theon sees spatter, and spatter can only be caused by freshly sprayed blood, why does Theon not immediately suspect BW? If he doesn't think BW is the killer, then ergo, he wouldn't see what he thinks is spatter. So obviously, to Theon, spatter can be caused in other ways.

On ‎12‎/‎19‎/‎2016 at 10:45 PM, OtherFromAnotherMother said:

That would have been a smarter reaction by Manderly. He loves making quips about Freys though, hard to pass on those opportunities. 

I doubt he thought Hosteen was going to slice up his poor, saggy necks. Who knows though? I'm stil open to the possibility that Lord Too Fat may be on a "kamikaze" mission of sorts. But that is for a different thread. Maybe he was thinking Roose would send the Freys and/or Manderlys outside and this was his ticket out? Maybe he knew about BW's killing? Maybe he was too busy eating that he didn't see the blood? I don't know. He probably should have pointed out BW, if he saw it.

Theon saw it, and he was sitting way in the back of the hall. Again, we're stuck trying to parse out Wyman's reasoning for his odd behavior by creating a long list of maybes. How about, maybe he just recognized, like everyone else, that the blood was from digging out the body?

On ‎12‎/‎19‎/‎2016 at 10:45 PM, OtherFromAnotherMother said:

It doesn't necessarily have to be from a fresh wound. But fresh (undried, unfrozen) blood in general. There is one instance where George used "spatter" to describe Daario dropping blood on the floor from blood dripping from this sleeve. They do, in fact, fight rather than try to find the killer, so I wouldn't really call that an assumption. I don't think its that they are too stupid, but that they already suspect who they suspect, and they don't know what the reader knows about blood spatter. I don't think this is "amateurish" I just think George wants us to know that BW did it because the LW murder is not a huge event in the course of the 7 books. Did you think Gravedigger=the Hound was amateurish as well?

Well OK then, now we are getting somewhere. Spatter does not, by definition, have to come from a fresh wound. In this case, though, you are in fact making that assumption, correct? If BW did not cause the wound that produced the spatter, then who did?

So now we have to examine the other element in this theory: that the body was completely frozen so that no spatter could occur. And in this case we simply do not have enough evidence to conclude beyond a doubt that the body was frozen solid. All we have is Theon's POV from across the entire length of the Great Hall in which the body appears to be frozen on the outside. Depending on how cold it is outside, the body could very well have gotten that way by being carried across the yard. So in my book, there is more than reasonable doubt that the blood on BW's person could only be caused by him murdering LW.

The assumption isn't that they fight, it's that they fight despite knowing, or not caring, who the obvious killer is.

The reader doesn't know anything about blood spatter. All that can be concluded is that it is not a continuous smear of blood, nor is it caked. And again, for Theon to see it from across the Great Hall, it would have to be rather large spatter spots -- certainly not tiny droplets that would be consistent with spray coming from a freshly cut body.

I don't think GRRM is amateurish either, which is why this theory is unlikely to be true. If he really wanted to drop a subtle hint about BW, he would have left it at spatter on the arms, chest and cloak and either dropped the bloody gloves entirely or put them on Hosteen. Then it would be an intriguing mystery.

I think I mentioned earlier that I actually missed the whole GD-Hound bit on first read. I was pretty disappointed with Feast, particularly Brienne's arc, so I blew right by it. Now it's one of my favorites.

On ‎12‎/‎19‎/‎2016 at 10:45 PM, OtherFromAnotherMother said:

This has been fun. Thanks for the discussion. I've learned way more about BW and LW then I ever imagined I would because of it. 

I agree, this has been a refreshingly civil discussion. And as I said before, you could be right. BW might be the killer. I just think there is plenty of wiggle room for alternate explanations.

[myhalfgroat]

On 12/19/2016 at 5:54 PM, John Suburbs said:

Somebody kills his cousin with a knife and butchers the body like a pig and then walks around with the blood on his hands for hours, and you don't think this is bizarre?

where does it say that he was walking around for hours with blood on his hands? is this supposed to be inferred from the fact that the body was frozen? if so, it doesn't take hours for the outside of a body to freeze in sub zero temperatures. when I was growing up (sometimes -30 with windchill) we had a pig get out of the barn. couldn't have been out for half an hour and yet when we found it the body was frozen stiff. not frozen solid, but certainly frozen. also, if you put a large steak on a snowbank in below zero weather and wait for it to freeze solid you'll be measuring time in minutes, not hours.

I'm pretty skeptical of the whole "digging through bloody snow = blood spatter" argument for all of the numerous reasons previously mentioned. but the obvious one for me is that we have an example of blood spatter in this very same chapter and that blood spatter was from violence, not burrowing.

I think the simplest answer is the correct one. BW killed LW and got blood on himself, he hid the body in a snowbank, didn't have an opportunity to clean himself up, then pointed blame on the easiest scapegoat available. Theon knows (strongly suspects) the Spearwives killed all the others in Winterfell, so he looks to them. the Freys know (highly suspect) Manderly killed their kin and the others in Winterfell, so they look to him.

in addition to the fact that BW appears to have been quite literally "caught red-handed", I just don't know why Manderly would kill him. if he's looking to kill a Frey, he'd kill an adult.

concerning Manderly's quip about growing up to be a Frey... I think it was just a too great of a chance to make a joke and he couldn't pass it up. cause let's face it, that's a pretty funny line and he'll never have another chance to use it.

[OtherFromAnotherMother]

8 hours ago, John Suburbs said:

I'm not sure I follow. Why would he have to dig quickly and not tell anyone? He could have started the digging only after the body had been discovered, after Hosteen had arrived on scene. We don't know how long the body has been there, how thoroughly frozen it was and how much blood may have seeped into the snow. Even though it appears to Theon to be frozen on the outside, we cannot rule out the possibility some wet blood remained in the body that spattered as BW shook it loose, or frozen blood in the snow had attached to his clothes during the digging, then melted to leave what look to him like spatter.

The blood is frozen. 

Quote

The scent of it set the horses to screaming. Dogs slid out from under the tables, sniffing. Men rose from the benches. The body in Ser Hosteen’s arms sparkled in the torchlight, armored in pink frost. The cold outside had frozen his blood.

Since there is no snow mentioned on BW why would we think he would have bloody melted snow on him (even though I still maintain this would not appear as spatter)? Snow is mentioned on Hosteen, yet no blood. 

8 hours ago, John Suburbs said:

Yes, this is exactly the challenge we face when we read Martin. Unlike a typical dispassionate narrator, a POV cannot give you the unvarnished truth -- only what the POV perceives to be the truth. The characters see what they see, but the conclusions they draw are often wrong: Theon sees a man called Abel, but his real name is Mance; Mel sees Arya approaching on a pale mare, but its really Alys... 

The examples you give are what the POV "knows" based on what they have bern told (found out).

I should have been more specific. Are there any instances where our POV is wrong when describing something so describable (can't think of a better word)? Do we have somewhere where a POV sees a wolf that is actually a lion? POV sees blue that is actually green? I don't think we do. I think we can trust that in situations like this George wants us to see what is actually there. But we can agree to disagree on this I suppose. 

8 hours ago, John Suburbs said:

If Theon thinks spatter cannot be caused in any other way, then why does he immediately suspect the spearwives?

Bias against known killers and Westeros 300 A.C doesn't know what the reader knows about blood spatter. I think it makes sense, but if you don't that's groovy too.

8 hours ago, John Suburbs said:

An indication is also not firm, conclusive proof. As I mentioned above, spatter, or, if you prefer, a spatter-like pattern, could be created by the digging out of the body, which may not be completely frozen.

As much as I don't think this is possible even with a not completely frozen corpse, the corpse's blood is frozen when we see it.

8 hours ago, John Suburbs said:

Again, "much more likely" is not the same as "conclusively, definitively, without question." Since I am merely suggesting the possibility that BW is not the killer and that the blood could be from the dead body or the snow and you are arguing that it most certainly cannot, the burden of proof is up to the person taking the absolute position. 5,000 years of jurisprudence has led us to the concept of guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, and blood spatter that is "much more likely" from a fresh wound than another source does not meet that standard.

So if I understand correctly, you could say the blood spatter is from a bird with the bloody flux flying over head of BW while he is laying out in the snow looking at the sky and I would have to prove it wrong rather than you proving it right?

8 hours ago, John Suburbs said:

And again, I take issue with the idea that spatter can only mean teeny, tiny droplets of blood. The spatter could be fairly large, caused by pulling the still seeping body from the snow. Indeed, how could Theon see such tiny droplets from way across the hall?

This would stray away from the definition of spatter. Hosteen and BW walk by Theon on his way to the high table. I think he probably gets a decent look.

8 hours ago, John Suburbs said:

There are all kinds of things that are proven. Tyrion is a dwarf. Sansa is in the Vale with Littlefinger. Tommen sits the Iron Throne. There is a lot of opaqueness, however, and it is fun to try to figure them out. It starts with recognizing what you know for a fact and what you are assuming, and then determining if your assumptions conform to the text without having to come up with even more, increasingly spurious, assumptions.

I was speaking of some of the mysteries in the books which are not "proven".

8 hours ago, John Suburbs said:

I contend there is nothing to resolve here. The answer is as clear as it appears to everyone involved: BW got bloody by recovering the body.

I think this is the crux of our friendly disagreement. I see the behavior and response by the people involved as relatively normal considering all the factors and the situation they are in. You see their response as an indication that BW didn't do anything wrong, yes? 

I think George wants the reader to know BW did it. But he does not want the people in the hall to know who did it. You do not. I think. Lol (my writing).

8 hours ago, John Suburbs said:

Before the attack even came, I would simply ask BW, where did that blood come from? Everybody immediately stops talking when Roose speaks.

Hindsight is 20/20. Hosteen attacks as soon as Manderly gives his Frey quip. Not much time.

8 hours ago, John Suburbs said:

Which simply creates yet another anomaly: if Theon sees spatter, and spatter can only be caused by freshly sprayed blood, why does Theon not immediately suspect BW? If he doesn't think BW is the killer, then ergo, he wouldn't see what he thinks is spatter. So obviously, to Theon, spatter can be caused in other ways.

Or.... Theon and the rest of the peoplein the hall have a bias against people who they think (know) killed others so they look to them instead. Also, I'm not as confident as you are in the blood spatter expertise of Westeros.

8 hours ago, John Suburbs said:

Theon saw it, and he was sitting way in the back of the hall. Again, we're stuck trying to parse out Wyman's reasoning for his odd behavior by creating a long list of maybes. How about, maybe he just recognized, like everyone else, that the blood was from digging out the body?

Then he wouldn't be Wyman Manderly. This goes back to what I think George wants from this situation, that we know something the characters do not. Something George does a lot.

8 hours ago, John Suburbs said:

Spatter does not, by definition, have to come from a fresh wound. In this case, though, you are in fact making that assumption, correct? If BW did not cause the wound that produced the spatter, then who did?

But blood spatter does have to come from fresh (undried, unfrozen) blood. Yes, an assumption based on facts told to us in the text (body being frozen, snow, etc.) I think BW caused the spatter. 

8 hours ago, John Suburbs said:

And in this case we simply do not have enough evidence to conclude beyond a doubt that the body was frozen solid. All we have is Theon's POV from across the entire length of the Great Hall in which the body appears to be frozen on the outside. Depending on how cold it is outside, the body could very well have gotten that way by being carried across the yard. So in my book, there is more than reasonable doubt that the blood on BW's person could only be caused by him murdering LW.

The blood is frozen when we see it in the hall. The blood froze on on the way while Hosteen was carrying it? Eh? Then why no blood on Hosteen? Technically, no it doesn't have to mean BW did the killing. The blood on BW could be from him standing right next to the person doing the killing. 

Also, this isn't a court case. We don't have to do "reasonable doubt". 

8 hours ago, John Suburbs said:

The reader doesn't know anything about blood spatter. All that can be concluded is that it is not a continuous smear of blood, nor is it caked. And again, for Theon to see it from across the Great Hall, it would have to be rather large spatter spots -- certainly not tiny droplets that would be consistent with spray coming from a freshly cut body.

Given the pattern with which George uses the term "blood spatter" I think we can determine what he wants us to see. His pattern, interestingly enough, happens to match the dictionary's definition.

Again, Hosteen would have to walk by Theon to take the body to the high table.

8 hours ago, John Suburbs said:

I agree, this has been a refreshingly civil discussion. And as I said before, you could be right. BW might be the killer. I just think there is plenty of wiggle room for alternate explanations.

Right on friend!  You don't want to kill the wrong guy. This is admirable. Maybe I'm a jerk face for wanting it to be this 9 year old kid... I just don't see any wiggle room for him. Other than if he was standing next to the actual killer. 

This is why the forums are fun though. Different perspectives really make you dig deep into the text to get a better understanding. Like I said earlier, I never thought I would know so much about BW and LW.