Assassination attempt on Bran in GOT

[The Sleeper]

On 12/28/2020 at 8:04 AM, Monster_Under_the_Bed said:

I guess I'll find out soon. 

No you won't. You need to get to the end of Storm, so you can have a full picture and can discuss this spoiler free. 

[Ivan Tsarevich]

4 hours ago, John Suburbs said:

Renly straight up confirmed that Petyr was lying about the dagger right in front of Ned, and he missed it.

Care to share that event?

[Monster_Under_the_Bed]

40 minutes ago, TsarGrey said:

Care to share that event?

See my post at the end of the previous page. Renly implied that Tyrion bet on Jaime Lannister in the joust where he allegedly won the dagger. Petyr claimed that Tyrion won by betting on Loras Tyrell.

[sweetsunray]

46 minutes ago, TsarGrey said:

Care to share that event?

It occurs during the Tourney of the Hand in Ned's POV. Petyr bets on Jaime, while Renly bets on the Hound. Jaime loses and Renly makes a comment on the previous time he bet with Tyrion and one cannot but conclude that Tyrion bet on Jaime then.

[Ivan Tsarevich]

Ah, thanks.

[Lady Topspin]

On 12/28/2020 at 1:04 AM, Monster_Under_the_Bed said:

I started rereading the books and I came to the part where Petyr Baelish reveals to Catelyn that the dagger that was used in attempt to kill Bran was his, until he lost it in a bet to Tyrion Lannister. This is obviously an attempt to implicate Tyrion, but I am wondering why would anyone fall for it. It's extremely unlikely that someone would equip a simpleton assassin with a very unique dagger that can be traced back to its owner. Many people knew about the bet where Petyr lost the dagger to Tyrion. Given that Tyrion is not an idiot, anyone who interacted with him could attest to the opposite, it's not logical to conclude that he was behind the attempt on Bran's life. It would be logical to deduce that someone tried to frame him though. I don't remember if anyone suggests that explanation in the book. I guess I'll find out soon.

Catelyn fell for it because Baelish has no motive to lie to her.  He was not in Winterfell when it happened.  Catelyn would have had to read his mind to see his intentions.  People lie to protect themselves or someone else.  Baelish had nobody to protect in Winterfell.  He had no connection to the man with the dagger and zero reason to want Bran gone.

[Mad King Bolton]

On 12/28/2020 at 10:58 AM, Mourning Star said:

Then in A Storm of Swords we get told who was in Winterfell with a bag of silver:

Mance Rayder might not have stolen a Stark daughter but he did return North with a bride, and seemingly began to gather the Free Folk in the Frostfangs to dig looking for something.

My guess is that whatever Mance found in the Winterfell Library before he lit it on fire was what led him to do the digging.

The Wildlings might see killing a cripple as a mercy, in fact Val says she would have killed Shireen and seen it as a mercy:

And finally, the assassin who tried to kill Bran shares Val's coloring, pale eyes and blonde hair.

If I had to make another guess, Mance met Dalla and Val when stopping to inform them that their relative (the assassin) had died.

For those that still believe the nonsense theory Tyrion came up with, I would point out that there are so many holes in the idea it's hard to even know where to begin. Jof lacks motive, would have no reason to give an assassin a unique dagger, is misquoted by Tyrion in his memory, and is obviously familiar with Valyrian steel from Ned's execution.

The entire scenario lacks plausibility with the timing of things. Not just your idea here (the bag of silver is a nice find) and some pieces fit just as some pieces fit that either Baelish or anyone else accused could have been responsible. The biggest hole with Mance is that he had it in mind to have a bag of silver to hire an assassin and steal a dagger that Tyrion no longer had possession of before knowing that there would be a crippled boy to kill. 

It's just as bad for Baelish to be implicated as he would have had to arm an assassin before Bran fell as well. It's a very clumsy scenario and doesn't really work on any level. 

All I can say is I've found GoT to have quite a few holes in it, but let's also remember that it's the first part of Martin's work and his world and story grew (along with his writing ability) across over what 20-30 years? He's become much more masterful as time has gone on (as anyone working at their craft would) and become much more clever and creative with disguising his ideas and plot points.  So, it's forgivable I think to have these clumsy instances especially at the beginning of things and then as it all gets deeper and has more importance in the grand scheme, it's done better.

[Lollygag]

On 12/28/2020 at 1:04 AM, Monster_Under_the_Bed said:

I started rereading the books and I came to the part where Petyr Baelish reveals to Catelyn that the dagger that was used in attempt to kill Bran was his, until he lost it in a bet to Tyrion Lannister. This is obviously an attempt to implicate Tyrion, but I am wondering why would anyone fall for it. It's extremely unlikely that someone would equip a simpleton assassin with a very unique dagger that can be traced back to its owner. Many people knew about the bet where Petyr lost the dagger to Tyrion. Given that Tyrion is not an idiot, anyone who interacted with him could attest to the opposite, it's not logical to conclude that he was behind the attempt on Bran's life. It would be logical to deduce that someone tried to frame him though. I don't remember if anyone suggests that explanation in the book. I guess I'll find out soon.

As others have said, Catelyn never saw LF for who he was, what he wanted, or what he was capable of.

As for why fall for it, Catelyn was despondent to the point of non-functionality when she thought Bran only had an accident (remember she tried to get him to stop climbing but failed? - her fault). But when it was attempted murder, she had someone else to blame and clung to that. LF told her what she most wanted to hear, needed to hear.

We see this need for resolution all of the time. Families of murder victims want a conviction regardless of the lack of quality evidence against a suspect because of a need for resolution. Catelyn is hardly unusual in this regard. It's all over the place on these true-crime shows.

 

[Monster_Under_the_Bed]

32 minutes ago, Lollygag said:

As others have said, Catelyn never saw LF for who he was, what he wanted, or what he was capable of.

As for why fall for it, Catelyn was despondent to the point of non-functionality when she thought Bran only had an accident (remember she tried to get him to stop climbing but failed? - her fault). But when it was attempted murder, she had someone else to blame and clung to that. LF told her what she most wanted to hear, needed to hear.

We see this need for resolution all of the time. Families of murder victims want a conviction regardless of the lack of quality evidence against a suspect because of a need for resolution. Catelyn is hardly unusual in this regard. It's all over the place on these true-crime shows.

 

I understand that Catelyn really wanted to find the guilty party. I am also not saying that she should not believe LF's story about the dagger. After all, he is not saying that Tyrion tried to setup Bran's murder, only that LF was the original owner of the dagger and he lost it in a bet to Tyrion. There is nothing implausible in that story itself. He may be implying that Tyrion was involved, but he doesn't state that outright.

On reflection though, it should occur to Catelyn (or Ned) that it was unlikely that Tyrion would give that dagger to an assassin who spoke and acted like an utter simpleton. Or that he would equip an assassin with an identifiable dagger at all, whoever he might have been. Tyrion tells Catelyn as much when she kidnaps him later on. He also tells her another bit of information, that he never bets against his family, however they may treat him. This gives Catelyn a momentary pause, but then she persists in believing what she wants to believe.

Ned also misses the crucial tidbit of information when Renly implies that Tyrion, if he were there, would have bet on Jaime in the joust, contradicting LF's story. So Starks were not very good at listening to people and analyzing motives. It lead to their undoing.

[Lollygag]

36 minutes ago, Monster_Under_the_Bed said:

I understand that Catelyn really wanted to find the guilty party. I am also not saying that she should not believe LF's story about the dagger. After all, he is not saying that Tyrion tried to setup Bran's murder, only that LF was the original owner of the dagger and he lost it in a bet to Tyrion. There is nothing implausible in that story itself.

On reflection though, it should occur to Catelyn (or Ned) that it was unlikely that Tyrion would give that dagger to an assassin who spoke and acted like an utter simpleton. Tyrion tells Catelyn as much when she kidnaps him later on. He also tells her another bit of information, that he never bets against his family, however they may treat him. This gives Catelyn a momentary pause, but then she persists in believing what she wants to believe.

Ned also misses the crucial tidbit of information when Renly implies that Tyrion, if he were there, would have bet on Jaime in the joust. So Starks were not very good at listening to people and analyzing motives. It lead to their undoing.

But this isn't logic ruling here, it's emotion. That's why family and friends don't conduct the investigations or sit on the juries. I don't think we should hold Catelyn up to standards that real life people are not expected to live up to. We actively prevent people from doing these things because the need for some sort of emotional resolution overrides logic.

 

[Alyn Oakenfist]

1 hour ago, Lollygag said:

But this isn't logic ruling here, it's emotion. That's why family and friends don't conduct the investigations or sit on the juries. I don't think we should hold Catelyn up to standards that real life people are not expected to live up to. We actively prevent people from doing these things because the need for some sort of emotional resolution overrides logic.

Yes, but Catelyn was playing with both her live, and more importantly the lives of her children. And instead of using her bloody brain, she thinks with her ass most likely, endangering her children several times over.

[The Sleeper]

To place some things in perspective.

• Tyrion was barely a blip in Ned's and Cat's radar with hardly a mention of him in their respective POV's. They wouldn't know if he was smart or stupid or what he was likely to do.
• They had not been to a tournament in King's Landing and would not know (or care) about what goes on in them in general and Tyrion's betting habits in particular in order to catch Littlefinger's lie.
• They had information from what they believed to be an independent source, Lysa, that the Lannisters in general were up to no good and already suspected Jaime and Cersei to be involved in Bran's fall. In that sense Tyrion was not that much of a stretch.
• They had no way of knowing that LF had his own agenda and had any reason to lie about the dagger's provenance.
• Regardless of anything else th dagger was their only concrete lead and barring new or contradictory information, pursuing this was their only way forward.

At that point in time they had no basis for thinking what you are proposing nor alternative routes to follow.

[Mourning Star]

On 12/30/2020 at 12:18 AM, Mad King Bolton said:

The entire scenario lacks plausibility with the timing of things. Not just your idea here (the bag of silver is a nice find) and some pieces fit just as some pieces fit that either Baelish or anyone else accused could have been responsible. The biggest hole with Mance is that he had it in mind to have a bag of silver to hire an assassin and steal a dagger that Tyrion no longer had possession of before knowing that there would be a crippled boy to kill. 

It's just as bad for Baelish to be implicated as he would have had to arm an assassin before Bran fell as well. It's a very clumsy scenario and doesn't really work on any level. 

All I can say is I've found GoT to have quite a few holes in it, but let's also remember that it's the first part of Martin's work and his world and story grew (along with his writing ability) across over what 20-30 years? He's become much more masterful as time has gone on (as anyone working at their craft would) and become much more clever and creative with disguising his ideas and plot points.  So, it's forgivable I think to have these clumsy instances especially at the beginning of things and then as it all gets deeper and has more importance in the grand scheme, it's done better.

I do not see what is implausible about it... especially when Littlefinger being behind it is literally impossible (he wasn't there) and not only is there no evidence it was Jof, the logic relies on misremembered quotes, pure conjecture, and incomprehensible motive.

The target was the Library, and the assassin would have come with Mance. There are many reasons to bring money with you on a trip.

The dagger only makes sense as a plant to frame someone else, there is no reason to need a dagger at all to kill a cripple in a coma, a pillow would work. Mance didn't need to know any more about the dagger than that it belonged to the King, which would be assumed if it was found in the baggage train.

Having Bran killed would have been a decision made on the spot, after his fall, with a primary motive of causing conflict in the south (which fits both with Mance going to the Frost Fangs to dig and raising an army after his visit to Winterfell) and it also fits with the Wildling sense of mercy for a cripple. The dagger would be sent to be left and cause strife between Winterfell and King's Landing. If we are being honest, it worked.

Quote

"Aye, and long before them came the Horned Lord and the brother kings Gendel and Gorne, and in ancient days Joramun, who blew the Horn of Winter and woke giants from the earth. Each man of them broke his strength on the Wall, or was broken by the power of Winterfell on the far side . . . but the Night's Watch is only a shadow of what we were, and who remains to oppose the wildlings besides us? The Lord of Winterfell is dead, and his heir has marched his strength south to fight the Lannisters. The wildlings may never again have such a chance as this. I knew Mance Rayder, Jon. He is an oathbreaker, yes . . . but he has eyes to see, and no man has ever dared to name him faintheart."

A Clash of Kings - Jon III

I think it's pretty wild that people can write off one of the original mysteries of the whole series as a badly written hack job. To each their own, but from just a meta perspective, Mance is mentioned in the very start of the series for a reason, he wasn't some character added later, and is still kicking about, in Winterfell no less.

Quote

The man had been taken outside a small holdfast in the hills. Robb thought he was a wildling, his sword sworn to Mance Rayder, the King-beyond-the-Wall. It made Bran's skin prickle to think of it. He remembered the hearth tales Old Nan told them. The wildlings were cruel men, she said, slavers and slayers and thieves.

A Game of Thrones - Bran I

Meanwhile the holes in Tyrion's whole Jof theory abound and are clearly intentional.

[Mourning Star]

49 minutes ago, The Sleeper said:

Regardless of anything else th dagger was their only concrete lead and barring new or contradictory information, pursuing this was their only way forward.

Not their only lead... the bag of silver and the assassin himself both provide hard evidence. 

Quote

"We found the knife still in the villain's grasp. It seemed to me that it was altogether too fine a weapon for such a man, so I looked at it long and hard. The blade is Valyrian steel, the hilt dragonbone. A weapon like that has no business being in the hands of such as him. Someone gave it to him."

A Game of Thrones - Catelyn III

It is presented right up front, the knife had to have been given to him, so we should ask ourselves "why was it given to him?"

It wasn't needed to kill a cripple in a coma.

It wasn't payment, since the assassin was paid in silver.

To me there are only two obvious reasons that come to mind. Either it was so personal someone wanted their own dagger used, which doesn't make much sense here at all, or it was meant to be left at the scene to implicate a third party, a reason that makes a ton of sense.

[Monster_Under_the_Bed]

1 hour ago, Mourning Star said:

I do not see what is implausible about it... especially when Littlefinger being behind it is literally impossible (he wasn't there) and not only is there no evidence it was Jof, the logic relies on misremembered quotes, pure conjecture, and incomprehensible motive.

LF would not be behind it as he wouldn't know that Bran was going to fall and would have to be silenced. However, LF's story related to the dagger should be scrutinized because it's an important clue for the Starks to follow. It's not like they have much more to go off of. 

Quote

The target was the Library, and the assassin would have come with Mance. There are many reasons to bring money with you on a trip.

I am still rereading the first book, but to me it seems fairly clear that the person behind the assassination attempt is Cersei. She knows that Bran might talk when he wakes up (the only other person who knows is Jaime), and she also hates Tyrion with a passion. Jaime would not conspire to frame Tyrion so it must have been her acting alone. I don't see what business Mance Rayder would have in killing Bran.

Quote

The dagger only makes sense as a plant to frame someone else, there is no reason to need a dagger at all to kill a cripple in a coma, a pillow would work.

That's what I have been saying all along, and it's also what Tyrion says to Catelyn. It literally makes no sense that he would be behind it and Starks should be aware enough to realize that. If not immediately, then after giving it some thought.

[Monster_Under_the_Bed]

Quote

Tyrion was barely a blip in Ned's and Cat's radar with hardly a mention of him in their respective POV's. They wouldn't know if he was smart or stupid or what he was likely to do.

That's part of their failure though. The king's visit to Winterfell was the most momentous event in years. Starks had an opportunity to meet the movers and shakers of the realm or get to know them better. Even though Tyrion was an outcast of the family, he was still a Lannister and had a lot of influence. They should have taken a measure of him at least. 

Quote

They had not been to a tournament in King's Landing and would not know (or care) about what goes on in them in general and Tyrion's betting habits in particular in order to catch Littlefinger's lie.

LF's story about the bet was super important though. That was a lead to follow and if they scrutinized it, then Renly's comment later on would not have gone unnoticed.

Quote

Regardless of anything else th dagger was their only concrete lead and barring new or contradictory information, pursuing this was their only way forward.

That's the problem, they didn't pursue the lead, they just foolishly assumed it was Tyrion.

[Mourning Star]

58 minutes ago, Monster_Under_the_Bed said:

LF would not be behind it as he wouldn't know that Bran was going to fall and would have to be silenced. However, LF's story related to the dagger should be scrutinized because it's an important clue for the Starks to follow. It's not like they have much more to go off of. 

LFs tale is important to the plot, but not the mystery of who sent the assassin to kill Bran.

58 minutes ago, Monster_Under_the_Bed said:

I am still rereading the first book, but to me it seems fairly clear that the person behind the assassination attempt is Cersei. She knows that Bran might talk when he wakes up (the only other person who knows is Jaime), and she also hates Tyrion with a passion. Jaime would not conspire to frame Tyrion so it must have been her acting alone. I don't see what business Mance Rayder would have in killing Bran.

Well given that we have PoVs from Jaime, Cersei, and Tyrion we can be pretty sure it wasn't them.

Mance Rayder has the most obvious motive, and the most to gain, from Bran being killed with the King's dagger. Mance is planning to lead an army over the Wall and into the Seven Kingdoms. He knows his history, as I tried to point out with the quote above, and the assassination attempt on Bran spawns a conflict in the south, leaving the North open to invasion.

58 minutes ago, Monster_Under_the_Bed said:

That's what I have been saying all along, and it's also what Tyrion says to Catelyn. It literally makes no sense that he would be behind it and Starks should be aware enough to realize that. If not immediately, then after giving it some thought.

And this is what makes LF such a great misdirection, it makes sense that he would want to incite a struggle between Stark and Lannister... it's just that he isn't the only one for whom this motive makes sense, it works even better to explain why Mance would send a man to kill Bran with a stolen dagger.

LF causes chaos as a way of making opportunities for his own gain.

Mance has a plan for which this chaos is exceptionally useful.

[The Sleeper]

52 minutes ago, Monster_Under_the_Bed said:

That's part of their failure though. The king's visit to Winterfell was the most momentous event in years. Starks had an opportunity to meet the movers and shakers of the realm or get to know them better. Even though Tyrion was an outcast of the family, he was still a Lannister and had a lot of influence. They should have taken a measure of him at least. 

Well, you have half corrected yourself.

No, Tyrion did not have any have any influence until his father appointed him his proxy but was merely amusing himself. Ned and Cat had bigger things to worry about than Tywin's idle and barely acknowledged son. 

56 minutes ago, Monster_Under_the_Bed said:

LF's story about the bet was super important though. That was a lead to follow and if they scrutinized it, then Renly's comment later on would not have gone unnoticed.

Why was it super important? Jaime fell on his ass and people had a laugh about it. And then they moved on. Tyrion himself doesn't phrase it as if remembered the particular event. Just that on a principal he doesn't bet against his family.

 

1 hour ago, Monster_Under_the_Bed said:

That's the problem, they didn't pursue the lead, they just foolishly assumed it was Tyrion.

They could have checked, I'll grant you that. Cat left though intending to pursue nothing but her return to Winterfell. Ned himself was looking at the murder of Jon Arryn. It wasn't that long before shit hit the fan. 

Everything you mention is in hindsight. They had no reason to question that information. 

[Monster_Under_the_Bed]

45 minutes ago, The Sleeper said:

Well, you have half corrected yourself.

No, Tyrion did not have any have any influence until his father appointed him his proxy but was merely amusing himself. Ned and Cat had bigger things to worry about than Tywin's idle and barely acknowledged son. 

He's still the queen's brother, Tywin's son, and a very wealthy man. Easily among 10 most important people who arrived at Winterfell with the king. Even if the other Lannisters hate him, and not all do as Jaime has genuine affection for him, should he come to any harm, he could easily be a pretext to conflict. Besides, very few men are wholly without ambition, even if they pretend not to care for the time being.

Quote

Why was it super important? Jaime fell on his ass and people had a laugh about it. And then they moved on. Tyrion himself doesn't phrase it as if remembered the particular event. Just that on a principal he doesn't bet against his family.

The important part is LF owning up that the attempted murder weapon used to be his. From that point on it's crucial to trace what happened to the dagger afterwards and confirm Petyr's story in the first place. There were presumably some witnesses to the bet at least. LF's small lie could have been discovered almost immediately, which would lead to further questions. 

Quote

Everything you mention is in hindsight. They had no reason to question that information. 

I think they did have reasons, but agree to disagree I guess

[Lollygag]

9 hours ago, Alyn Oakenfist said:

Yes, but Catelyn was playing with both her live, and more importantly the lives of her children. And instead of using her bloody brain, she thinks with her ass most likely, endangering her children several times over.

Sure. And it's so common with real people that our entire justice system assumes that people can't be objective when it comes to tragedies that befall loved ones. Your frustration is certainly valid - I'm very frustrated with it too, but your problem is with human nature. Catelyn is only a mirror of it in this case.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oresteia