Murder mystery sudoku — the daily cases for 30 July 2026

Every detective in the world got these same crime scenes on 2026-07-30 — 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 Old Harbor

A 5×5 grid across 3 rooms: Harbormaster's, Breakwater, Cold Store. Eight statements, five squares nobody could stand on, and enough testimony that the surplus is what pins the last two down.

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. CA — cabinet · CO — computer · R — radio · S — shark · W — window (square stays free)

The testimony

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

Boris was in the cold store. leaves 4 of 21 squares
Show it on the board
The squares this one statement leaves Boris: 4 of 21.
Boris was in the leftmost column. leaves 1 of 21 squares
Show it on the board
The squares this one statement leaves Boris: 1 of 21.
Hilda was in row 2. leaves 5 of 21 squares
Show it on the board
The squares this one statement leaves Hilda: 5 of 21.
Hilda was in the harbormaster's office. leaves 3 of 21 squares
Show it on the board
The squares this one statement leaves Hilda: 3 of 21.
Nadia was in the top row. leaves 3 of 21 squares
Show it on the board
The squares this one statement leaves Nadia: 3 of 21.
Nadia was in the harbormaster's office. leaves 1 of 21 squares
Show it on the board
The squares this one statement leaves Nadia: 1 of 21.
Ines was in column 3. leaves 3 of 21 squares
Ines was in the breakwater. leaves 1 of 21 squares

Show the squares Hilda had left

The squares still open to Hilda once their own statements are taken into account — 3 of 21.

What the testimony settles on its own

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

Quentin can only be in Breakwater (row 4, column 2) — down from 21 possible squares.
Hilda can only be in Harbormaster's (row 2, column 5) — down from 3 possible squares.

The answer

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

Show the solved board

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

Easy — The Old Harbor

A 6×6 grid across 4 rooms: Dock, Marina, Cold Store, Boathouse. Seven statements, ten 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 — boat · CA — cabinet · CO — computer · CR — crate · F — floor lamp · R — radio · S — shark · W — window (square stays free)

The testimony

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

Irene was beside the radio. leaves 2 of 26 squares
Show it on the board
The squares this one statement leaves Irene: 2 of 26.
Hugo was in the top row. leaves 5 of 26 squares
Show it on the board
The squares this one statement leaves Hugo: 5 of 26.
Hugo was in the cold store. leaves 2 of 26 squares
Show it on the board
The squares this one statement leaves Hugo: 2 of 26.
Olivia was beside the crate. leaves 3 of 26 squares
Show it on the board
The squares this one statement leaves Olivia: 3 of 26.
Elias was in row 5. leaves 4 of 26 squares
Show it on the board
The squares this one statement leaves Elias: 4 of 26.
Elias was in the dock. leaves 1 of 26 squares
Show it on the board
The squares this one statement leaves Elias: 1 of 26.
Kurt was beside the shark. leaves 3 of 26 squares

Show the squares Irene had left

The squares still open to Irene once their own statements are taken into account — 2 of 26.

What the testimony settles on its own

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

Delia can only be in Marina (row 3, column 3) — down from 26 possible squares.
Irene can only be in Boathouse (row 6, column 1) — down from 2 possible squares.
Hugo can only be in Cold Store (row 1, column 2) — down from 2 possible squares.
Olivia can only be in Dock (row 2, column 5) — down from 3 possible squares.
Kurt can only be in Marina (row 4, column 4) — down from 3 possible squares.

The answer

That leaves one arrangement, and one person who could have done it: Kurt, in Marina (row 4, column 4).

Show the solved board

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

Medium — The Old Harbor

A 7×7 grid across 5 rooms: Breakwater, Cold Store, Fish Market, Boathouse, Dock. Eight statements, eleven squares nobody could stand on, 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. B — boat · CA — cabinet · CH — chest · CO — computer · CR — crate · F — floor lamp · R — radio · S — shark · W — window (square stays free)

The testimony

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

Boris was beside a boat. leaves 4 of 38 squares
Show it on the board
The squares this one statement leaves Boris: 4 of 38.
Paloma was beside a window. leaves 2 of 38 squares
Show it on the board
The squares this one statement leaves Paloma: 2 of 38.
Paloma was in the boathouse or in the dock. leaves 1 of 38 squares
Show it on the board
The squares this one statement leaves Paloma: 1 of 38.
Jimena was beside the cabinet. leaves 3 of 38 squares
Show it on the board
The squares this one statement leaves Jimena: 3 of 38.
Rufus was in column 3. leaves 7 of 38 squares
Show it on the board
The squares this one statement leaves Rufus: 7 of 38.
Rufus was in the same row as the shark. leaves 1 of 38 squares
Show it on the board
The squares this one statement leaves Rufus: 1 of 38.
Tristan was in the same room as Milo.
Milo was in the same row as the cabinet. leaves 6 of 38 squares

Show the squares Jimena had left

The squares still open to Jimena once their own statements are taken into account — 3 of 38.

The squares that had to be tested

The rest does not fall out on its own. It takes 29 eliminations of the same move: put someone on a square, follow the consequences, and watch the board contradict itself.

Had Boris stood in Fish Market (row 4, column 6), Milo would have had nowhere left to stand. So not there.
Had Jimena stood in Fish Market (row 4, column 1), Milo would have had nowhere left to stand. So not there.
Put Wanda in Cold Store (row 2, column 1) and the testimony cannot be satisfied at all. So not there.
Put Tristan in Fish Market (row 2, column 6) and the testimony cannot be satisfied at all. So not there.

Show what goes wrong

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

Another 25 squares fell the same way.

The answer

That leaves one arrangement, and one person who could have done it: Rufus, in Dock (row 6, column 3).

Show the solved board

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

Hard — The Old Harbor

A 10×8 grid across 7 rooms: Boathouse, Marina, Dock, Cold Store, Warehouse, Pier, Harbormaster's. Sixteen statements, fifteen 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.

The twist: 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. B — boat · CA — cabinet · CH — chest · CO — computer · CR — crate · F — floor lamp · R — radio · S — shark · W — window (square stays free)

The testimony

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

Tamara was somewhere west of Queralt.
Tamara was in the same room as the Heiress.
Tamara was somewhere west of the Chauffeur.
Octavio was all alone in a room.
Octavio was in the same row as the floor lamp. leaves 9 of 66 squares
Show it on the board
The squares this one statement leaves Octavio: 9 of 66.
Queralt was not in the dock. leaves 53 of 66 squares
Queralt was in the same row as a chest. leaves 13 of 66 squares
Show it on the board
The squares this one statement leaves Queralt: 13 of 66.
Nico was in the same row as a chest. leaves 17 of 66 squares
Show it on the board
The squares this one statement leaves Nico: 17 of 66.
Nico was in the same room as Zeno.
Nico was in the same column as a chest. leaves 2 of 66 squares
Show it on the board
The squares this one statement leaves Nico: 2 of 66.
Wren was all alone in a room.
Wren was exactly 3 rows north of Petra.
Wren was exactly 1 column west of Octavio.
Wren was in the same row as a cabinet. leaves 17 of 66 squares
Show it on the board
The squares this one statement leaves Wren: 17 of 66.
Petra was in the same column as a window. leaves 14 of 66 squares
Show it on the board
The squares this one statement leaves Petra: 14 of 66.
Zeno was somewhere east of the Gardener.

Show the squares Nico had left

The squares still open to Nico once their own statements are taken into account — 2 of 66.

What the testimony settles on its own

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

Nico can only be in Dock (row 6, column 9) — down from 2 possible squares.
Petra can only be in Warehouse (row 7, column 1) — down from 14 possible squares.
Zeno can only be in Dock (row 5, column 10) — down from 66 possible squares.

The squares that had to be tested

The rest does not fall out on its own. It takes 14 eliminations of the same move: put someone on a square, follow the consequences, and watch the board contradict itself.

Had Tamara stood in Warehouse (row 8, column 3), Octavio would have had nowhere left to stand. So not there.
Put Octavio in Harbormaster's (row 2, column 3) and the testimony cannot be satisfied at all. So not there.
Had Sol stood in Marina (row 1, column 3), Octavio would have had nowhere left to stand. So not there.
Had Queralt stood in Marina (row 3, column 3), Octavio would have had nowhere left to stand. So not there.

Show what goes wrong

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

Another 10 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. 7 motives are in play, and these statements narrow them.

Nico's motive would have been ambition.
Zeno's motive would have been debts.
Wren's motive would have been inheritance.
Petra's motive would have been jealousy.
Whoever did it was not driven by blackmail.
Queralt was not driven by revenge.

The answer

That leaves one arrangement, and one person who could have done it: Queralt, in Cold Store (row 3, column 7).

The only motive left standing for Queralt is obsession.

Show the solved board

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

Expert — The Old Harbor

A 9×9 grid across 7 rooms: Cold Store, Dock, Fish Market, Warehouse, Boathouse, Pier, Marina. Twenty statements, sixteen squares nobody could stand on, 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.

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 — boat · CA — cabinet · CH — chest · CO — computer · CR — crate · F — floor lamp · R — radio · S — shark · 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.

Nestor was in the same column as a crate. if true, leaves 12 of 66
Show it on the board
The squares this one statement leaves Nestor: 12 of 66.
Vivienne was somewhere west of Pablo.
Vivienne was in the same row as a crate. if true, leaves 14 of 66
Show it on the board
The squares this one statement leaves Vivienne: 14 of 66.
Vivienne was somewhere south of the Gardener.
Pablo was in the same row as a computer. if true, leaves 12 of 66
Show it on the board
The squares this one statement leaves Pablo: 12 of 66.
Delia was in the same row as a chest. if true, leaves 16 of 66
Show it on the board
The squares this one statement leaves Delia: 16 of 66.
Conrad was in row 6. if true, leaves 58 of 66
Conrad was in the same column as the cabinet. if true, leaves 51 of 66
Ursula was somewhere west of the Curator.
Ursula was somewhere north of the Butler.
Ursula was somewhere west of the Gardener.
Ursula was somewhere east of Nestor.
Ursula was in the same row as a floor lamp. if true, leaves 14 of 66
Show it on the board
The squares this one statement leaves Ursula: 14 of 66.
Sol was somewhere north of Vivienne.
Sol was in the same column as a computer. if true, leaves 14 of 66
Show it on the board
The squares this one statement leaves Sol: 14 of 66.
Rita was beside a floor lamp. if true, leaves 7 of 66
Rita was in the same row as a chest. if true, leaves 1 of 66
Exactly 2 people were in the marina.
Exactly 2 people were in the dock.
Exactly 2 people were in the cold store.

Show the squares Nestor had left

The squares still open to Nestor once their own statements are taken into account — 12 of 66.

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 Nestor were the one lying, no arrangement satisfies the rest. Not them.
If Vivienne were the one lying, no arrangement satisfies the rest. Not them.
If Pablo were the one lying, no arrangement satisfies the rest. Not them.
If Delia were the one lying, no arrangement satisfies the rest. Not them.

Another 4 candidates collapse the same way.

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

Read backwards, Conrad actually told you:

Conrad was NOT in row 6.
Conrad was NOT in the same column as the cabinet.

What the testimony settles on its own

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

Sol can only be in Cold Store (row 5, column 7) — down from 14 possible squares.

The squares that had to be tested

The rest does not fall out on its own. It takes 65 eliminations of the same move: put someone on a square, follow the consequences, and watch the board contradict itself.

Had Nestor stood in Boathouse (row 1, column 4), Delia would have had nowhere left to stand. So not there.
Had Vivienne stood in Dock (row 6, column 2), Conrad would have had nowhere left to stand. So not there.
Put Pablo in Boathouse (row 2, column 6) and the testimony cannot be satisfied at all. So not there.
Had Delia stood in Boathouse (row 1, column 4), Nestor would have had nowhere left to stand. So not there.

Show what goes wrong

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

Another 61 squares fell the same way.

Nestor can only be in Pier (row 3, column 4) — down from 2 possible squares.
Vivienne can only be in Cold Store (row 6, column 5) — down from 2 possible squares.

The answer

That leaves one arrangement, and one person who could have done it: Rita, in Dock (row 9, column 3). Conrad lied throughout and was never charged.

Show the solved board

The only arrangement the testimony allows. Rita 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 29 July

Play free — no download