Murder mystery sudoku — the daily cases for 29 July 2026

Every detective in the world got these same crime scenes on 2026-07-29 — each difficulty published twice, once untimed and once as time attack. Each case is procedurally generated and then proved to have exactly one logical solution before it is published, including the cases where somebody is lying. You place every suspect back on the map using only their testimony: exactly one person per row, never two in a column. Whoever is left alone with the victim did it.

Beginner — The Backyard Garden

A 5×5 grid across 4 rooms: Patio, Pond, Living room, Kitchen. Five statements, seven squares nobody could stand on, and no assumption anywhere: elimination alone closes it.

Cracked by one detective so far.

How this case was cracked — the full solution to this board, step by step

Every step below is the solver’s own — the same one that proved this board has exactly one answer. The counts are real: you can check them against the grid.

Lettered squares are objects. Most take the square out of play — which is why the counts above are of free squares, not of all of them — but the ones marked below do not: their square is still in play. B — bed (square stays free) · C — chest · D — desk · FL — floor lamp · FO — flower bush · S — stove · W — window (square stays free)

The testimony

What each person said, and how much of the board it rules out.

Elena was beside the stove. leaves 1 of 20 squares
Show it on the board
The squares this one statement leaves Elena: 1 of 20.
Paloma was in the patio. leaves 3 of 20 squares
Show it on the board
The squares this one statement leaves Paloma: 3 of 20.
Selma was beside the window. leaves 1 of 20 squares
Show it on the board
The squares this one statement leaves Selma: 1 of 20.
Kurt was in column 3. leaves 4 of 20 squares
Show it on the board
The squares this one statement leaves Kurt: 4 of 20.
Kurt was in row 2. leaves 1 of 20 squares
Show it on the board
The squares this one statement leaves Kurt: 1 of 20.

Show the squares Paloma had left

The squares still open to Paloma once their own statements are taken into account — 3 of 20.

What the testimony settles on its own

Nobody shares a row or a column, so each placement narrows everyone else. Before a single guess:

Paloma can only be in Patio (row 5, column 1) — down from 3 possible squares.
Wanda can only be in Pond (row 3, column 5) — down from 20 possible squares.

The answer

That leaves one arrangement, and one person who could have done it: Kurt, in Pond (row 2, column 3).

Show the solved board

The only arrangement the testimony allows. Kurt is ringed in red.

Easy — The Backyard Garden

A 6×6 grid across 4 rooms: Shed, Kitchen, Living room, Backyard. Six statements, eleven squares nobody could stand on, and no assumption anywhere: elimination alone closes it.

Cracked by one detective so far.

How this case was cracked — the full solution to this board, step by step

Every step below is the solver’s own — the same one that proved this board has exactly one answer. The counts are real: you can check them against the grid.

Lettered squares are objects. Most take the square out of play — which is why the counts above are of free squares, not of all of them — but the ones marked below do not: their square is still in play. A — armchair (square stays free) · BE — bed (square stays free) · BO — bookshelf · CA — carpet (square stays free) · CH — chest · F — flower bush · SO — sofa (square stays free) · ST — stove · T — tree · W — window (square stays free)

The testimony

What each person said, and how much of the board it rules out.

Tesa was beside a window. leaves 2 of 31 squares
Show it on the board
The squares this one statement leaves Tesa: 2 of 31.
Kaspar was in the tool shed. leaves 4 of 31 squares
Show it on the board
The squares this one statement leaves Kaspar: 4 of 31.
Pablo was in the backyard. leaves 8 of 31 squares
Show it on the board
The squares this one statement leaves Pablo: 8 of 31.
Julian was beside the chest. leaves 2 of 31 squares
Show it on the board
The squares this one statement leaves Julian: 2 of 31.
Hugo was seated on the sofa. leaves 2 of 31 squares
Show it on the board
The squares this one statement leaves Hugo: 2 of 31.
Hugo was beside the carpet. leaves 1 of 31 squares
Show it on the board
The squares this one statement leaves Hugo: 1 of 31.

Show the squares Tesa had left

The squares still open to Tesa once their own statements are taken into account — 2 of 31.

What the testimony settles on its own

Nobody shares a row or a column, so each placement narrows everyone else. Before a single guess:

Tesa can only be in Kitchen (row 6, column 6) — down from 2 possible squares.
Delia can only be in Living room (row 2, column 2) — down from 31 possible squares.
Kaspar can only be in Shed (row 3, column 3) — down from 4 possible squares.
Pablo can only be in Backyard (row 1, column 5) — down from 8 possible squares.
Julian can only be in Kitchen (row 5, column 4) — down from 2 possible squares.

The answer

That leaves one arrangement, and one person who could have done it: Hugo, in Living room (row 4, column 1).

Show the solved board

The only arrangement the testimony allows. Hugo is ringed in red.

Medium — The Backyard Garden

A 7×7 grid across 6 rooms: Living room, Pond, Garden, Shed, Kitchen, Backyard. Ten statements, eleven squares nobody could stand on, almost as many rooms as suspects, so a room claim nearly names a square, and one round of assume-and-test after elimination ran dry.

Cracked by one detective so far.

How this case was cracked — the full solution to this board, step by step

Every step below is the solver’s own — the same one that proved this board has exactly one answer. The counts are real: you can check them against the grid.

Lettered squares are objects. Most take the square out of play — which is why the counts above are of free squares, not of all of them — but the ones marked below do not: their square is still in play. A — armchair (square stays free) · BE — bed (square stays free) · BO — bookshelf · CA — carpet (square stays free) · CH — chest · D — desk · FL — floor lamp · FO — flower bush · T — tree · W — window (square stays free)

The testimony

What each person said, and how much of the board it rules out.

Ruben was in the same column as the flower bush. leaves 6 of 43 squares
Show it on the board
The squares this one statement leaves Ruben: 6 of 43.
Ruben was in the same row as the carpet. leaves 2 of 43 squares
Show it on the board
The squares this one statement leaves Ruben: 2 of 43.
Jimena was in row 4. leaves 7 of 43 squares
Show it on the board
The squares this one statement leaves Jimena: 7 of 43.
Jimena was in the garden or in the kitchen. leaves 6 of 43 squares
Show it on the board
The squares this one statement leaves Jimena: 6 of 43.
Greta was in the same row as the carpet. leaves 14 of 43 squares
Show it on the board
The squares this one statement leaves Greta: 14 of 43.
Greta was in the living room or in the garden. leaves 2 of 43 squares
Show it on the board
The squares this one statement leaves Greta: 2 of 43.
Marco was in the same room as Dorian.
Marco was in the same column as a window. leaves 13 of 43 squares
Dorian was in the same row as a window. leaves 12 of 43 squares
Wanda was beside the bookshelf. leaves 2 of 43 squares

Show the squares Ruben had left

The squares still open to Ruben once their own statements are taken into account — 2 of 43.

The squares that had to be tested

The rest does not fall out on its own. It takes 61 eliminations of the same move: put someone on a square, follow the consequences, and watch the board contradict itself.

Had Ruben stood in Pond (row 6, column 5), Greta would have had nowhere left to stand. So not there.
Had Kira stood in Living room (row 1, column 1), Dorian would have had nowhere left to stand. So not there.
Had Jimena stood in Garden (row 4, column 2), Wanda would have had nowhere left to stand. So not there.
Had Greta stood in Garden (row 6, column 3), Wanda would have had nowhere left to stand. So not there.

Show what goes wrong

Suppose Ruben stood on the dashed square. Greta then has nowhere left to stand: every square still open to them is shaded out.

Another 57 squares fell the same way.

The answer

That leaves one arrangement, and one person who could have done it: Greta, in Living room (row 6, column 2).

Show the solved board

The only arrangement the testimony allows. Greta is ringed in red.

Hard — The Backyard Garden

An 8×8 grid across 6 rooms: Garden, Kitchen, Living room, Shed, Pond, Bedroom. Seventeen statements, fourteen squares nobody could stand on, and one round of assume-and-test after elimination ran dry — and one of the eight was lying throughout.

The twist: one suspect is an accomplice — every statement they make is false; the accusation also demands the motive, not just the name.

Cracked by one detective so far.

How this case was cracked — the full solution to this board, step by step

Every step below is the solver’s own — the same one that proved this board has exactly one answer. The counts are real: you can check them against the grid.

Lettered squares are objects. Most take the square out of play — which is why the counts above are of free squares, not of all of them — but the ones marked below do not: their square is still in play. A — armchair (square stays free) · BE — bed (square stays free) · BO — bookshelf · C — chest · D — desk · FL — floor lamp · FO — flower bush · P — painting (square stays free) · SO — sofa (square stays free) · ST — stove · T — tree · W — window (square stays free)

The testimony

What each person said. One of these 8 is the killer's accomplice and every word they said is false — but not which one, not yet.

Rita was in the same row as the desk. if true, leaves 6 of 55
Show it on the board
The squares this one statement leaves Rita: 6 of 55.
Rita was in the same column as the flower bush. if true, leaves 1 of 55
Show it on the board
The squares this one statement leaves Rita: 1 of 55.
Rita was somewhere east of Nico.
Tobias was in the same column as the chest. if true, leaves 7 of 55
Show it on the board
The squares this one statement leaves Tobias: 7 of 55.
Tobias was beside the floor lamp. if true, leaves 1 of 55
Show it on the board
The squares this one statement leaves Tobias: 1 of 55.
Flora was in the same column as the painting. if true, leaves 6 of 55
Show it on the board
The squares this one statement leaves Flora: 6 of 55.
Flora was somewhere north of the Heiress.
Flora was somewhere east of the Colonel.
Helena was in the same column as the window. if true, leaves 42 of 55
Helena was beside the bookshelf.
Nico was in the same column as the bed. if true, leaves 14 of 55
Show it on the board
The squares this one statement leaves Nico: 14 of 55.
Nico was in row 5. if true, leaves 2 of 55
Nico was somewhere south of Helena.
Nico was in the same room as the Colonel.
Oscar was in the same row as the chest. if true, leaves 6 of 55
Oscar was somewhere north of Kira.
Kira was somewhere east of Flora.

Show the squares Nico had left

The squares still open to Nico once their own statements are taken into account — 2 of 55.

Unmasking the liar

One of these 8 people is the killer's accomplice, and every word they said is false — but you are not told which. Take each in turn: read their statements backwards and ask whether the rest of the testimony can still be satisfied.

If Victor were the one lying, no arrangement satisfies the rest. Not them.
If Rita were the one lying, no arrangement satisfies the rest. Not them.
If Tobias were the one lying, no arrangement satisfies the rest. Not them.
If Flora were the one lying, no arrangement satisfies the rest. Not them.

Another 3 candidates collapse the same way.

Only Helena survives the test. That is the accomplice, and everything they said is now read backwards.

Read backwards, Helena actually told you:

Helena was NOT in the same column as the window.
Helena was NOT beside the bookshelf.

What the testimony settles on its own

Nobody shares a row or a column, so each placement narrows everyone else. Before a single guess:

Victor can only be in Bedroom (row 6, column 5) — down from 55 possible squares.
Flora can only be in Shed (row 1, column 6) — down from 6 possible squares.
Helena can only be in Bedroom (row 4, column 4) — down from 42 possible squares.
Nico can only be in Pond (row 5, column 2) — down from 2 possible squares.
Oscar can only be in Pond (row 7, column 1) — down from 6 possible squares.
Kira can only be in Kitchen (row 8, column 8) — down from 55 possible squares.

The motive

This case demands the why as well as the who: naming the killer without proving the motive counts for nothing. 7 motives are in play, and these statements narrow them.

Flora's motive would have been blackmail.
Rita's motive would have been jealousy.
Oscar's motive would have been ambition.
Tobias's motive would have been buried secrets.
Helena was not driven by inheritance.
Helena was not driven by obsession.

The answer

That leaves one arrangement, and one person who could have done it: Helena, in Bedroom (row 4, column 4). Helena lied throughout and was never charged.

The only motive left standing for Helena is debts.

Show the solved board

The only arrangement the testimony allows. Helena is ringed in red.

Expert — The Backyard Garden

A 9×9 grid across 8 rooms: Patio, Pond, Sunroom, Garden, Living room, Bedroom, Backyard, Kitchen. Sixteen statements, sixteen squares nobody could stand on, almost as many rooms as suspects, so a room claim nearly names a square, and two rounds of assume-and-test after elimination ran dry — and one of the nine was lying throughout.

The twist: one suspect is an accomplice — every statement they make is false; the accusation also demands the motive, not just the name.

Cracked by one detective so far.

How this case was cracked — the full solution to this board, step by step

Every step below is the solver’s own — the same one that proved this board has exactly one answer. The counts are real: you can check them against the grid.

Lettered squares are objects. Most take the square out of play — which is why the counts above are of free squares, not of all of them — but the ones marked below do not: their square is still in play. A — armchair (square stays free) · BE — bed (square stays free) · BO — bookshelf · CA — carpet (square stays free) · CH — chest · D — desk · FL — floor lamp · FO — flower bush · SO — sofa (square stays free) · ST — stove · T — tree · W — window (square stays free)

The testimony

What each person said. One of these 9 is the killer's accomplice and every word they said is false — but not which one, not yet.

Jonas was somewhere west of the Journalist.
Jonas was in the same column as the chest. if true, leaves 64 of 71
Ofelia was in the same column as the carpet. if true, leaves 7 of 71
Show it on the board
The squares this one statement leaves Ofelia: 7 of 71.
Ofelia was in the same row as the carpet. if true, leaves 2 of 71
Show it on the board
The squares this one statement leaves Ofelia: 2 of 71.
Tesa was in the same column as the sofa. if true, leaves 9 of 71
Show it on the board
The squares this one statement leaves Tesa: 9 of 71.
Luna was somewhere south of Irene.
Luna was somewhere east of the Gardener.
Gordon was in the same row as the floor lamp. if true, leaves 8 of 71
Show it on the board
The squares this one statement leaves Gordon: 8 of 71.
Gordon was in the same column as the chest. if true, leaves 1 of 71
Show it on the board
The squares this one statement leaves Gordon: 1 of 71.
Irene was somewhere west of Celeste.
Horacio was beside a bookshelf. if true, leaves 6 of 71
Show it on the board
The squares this one statement leaves Horacio: 6 of 71.
Celeste was somewhere west of Jonas.
Celeste was somewhere north of the Butler.
Celeste was somewhere south of the Heiress.
Exactly 2 people were in the backyard.
Exactly 2 people were in the garden.

Show the squares Ofelia had left

The squares still open to Ofelia once their own statements are taken into account — 2 of 71.

Unmasking the liar

One of these 9 people is the killer's accomplice, and every word they said is false — but you are not told which. Take each in turn: read their statements backwards and ask whether the rest of the testimony can still be satisfied.

If Ofelia were the one lying, no arrangement satisfies the rest. Not them.
If Tesa were the one lying, no arrangement satisfies the rest. Not them.
If Luna were the one lying, no arrangement satisfies the rest. Not them.
If Gordon were the one lying, no arrangement satisfies the rest. Not them.

Another 4 candidates collapse the same way.

Only Jonas survives the test. That is the accomplice, and everything they said is now read backwards.

Read backwards, Jonas actually told you:

Jonas was NOT west of the Journalist.
Jonas was NOT in the same column as the chest.

The squares that had to be tested

The rest does not fall out on its own. It takes 178 eliminations of the same move: put someone on a square, follow the consequences, and watch the board contradict itself.

Had Jonas stood in Patio (row 1, column 4), Luna would have had nowhere left to stand. So not there.
Put Ofelia in Sunroom (row 3, column 7) and the testimony cannot be satisfied at all. So not there.
Had Tesa stood in Patio (row 1, column 6), Luna would have had nowhere left to stand. So not there.
Had Luna stood in Patio (row 2, column 5), Jonas would have had nowhere left to stand. So not there.

Show what goes wrong

Suppose Jonas stood on the dashed square. Luna then has nowhere left to stand: every square still open to them is shaded out.

Another 174 squares fell the same way.

The motive

This case demands the why as well as the who: naming the killer without proving the motive counts for nothing. 8 motives are in play, and these statements narrow them.

Irene's motive would have been revenge.
Horacio's motive would have been inheritance.
Gordon's motive would have been obsession.
Ofelia's motive would have been buried secrets.
Luna's motive would have been ambition.
Celeste was not driven by debts.
Whoever did it was not driven by blackmail.

The answer

That leaves one arrangement, and one person who could have done it: Celeste, in Backyard (row 6, column 4). Jonas lied throughout and was never charged.

The only motive left standing for Celeste is jealousy.

Show the solved board

The only arrangement the testimony allows. Celeste is ringed in red.

How to read a case above

The grid size is the size of the crime scene, so a 10×9 expert case is a far larger search than a 5×5 beginner one — but the difficulty is really carried by the clues, not the square count. A beginner case tells you almost directly where somebody stood. An expert case tells you where somebody was not, three times, and expects you to do the rest — and on half of them one of those statements is a lie told to protect the killer. If a case lists a motive, naming the right person is not enough on its own; you have to prove why.

How to play · Solving cases with a liar · Techniques

The day in review for this date has not been written yet — it appears here once it is.

Every day's cases — the calendar · ← the cases for 28 July

Play free — no download