Murder mystery sudoku — the daily cases for 26 August 2026

Every detective in the world got these same crime scenes on 2026-08-26 — 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 — Movie Night

A 5×5 grid across 4 rooms: Laundry, Pantry, TV Den, Guest Room. Six statements, eight squares nobody could stand on, and no assumption anywhere: elimination alone closes it.

Cracked by 25 detectives 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) · B — bookshelf · C — computer · F — floor lamp · P — potted plant · R — radio · W — window (square stays free)

The testimony

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

Gordon was in the TV den. leaves 3 of 19 squares
Show it on the board
The squares this one statement leaves Gordon: 3 of 19.
Ximena was in the bottom row. leaves 3 of 19 squares
Show it on the board
The squares this one statement leaves Ximena: 3 of 19.
Ximena was in the leftmost column. leaves 1 of 19 squares
Show it on the board
The squares this one statement leaves Ximena: 1 of 19.
Julian was in the TV den. leaves 3 of 19 squares
Show it on the board
The squares this one statement leaves Julian: 3 of 19.
Julian was in the top row. leaves 1 of 19 squares
Show it on the board
The squares this one statement leaves Julian: 1 of 19.
Ursula was in the pantry. leaves 5 of 19 squares
Show it on the board
The squares this one statement leaves Ursula: 5 of 19.

Show the squares Gordon had left

The squares still open to Gordon once their own statements are taken into account — 3 of 19.

What the testimony settles on its own

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

Gordon can only be in TV Den (row 2, column 4) — down from 3 possible squares.
Wilfred can only be in Guest Room (row 3, column 2) — down from 19 possible squares.
Ursula can only be in Pantry (row 4, column 3) — down from 5 possible squares.

The answer

That leaves one arrangement, and one person who could have done it: Ximena, in Guest Room (row 5, column 1).

Show the solved board

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

Beginner · time attack — The Hiking Trip

A 5×5 grid across 3 rooms: Trailhead, Riverbank, Campsite. Seven 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. Nobody can stand on one, which is why the counts above are of free squares, not of all of them. BE — bear · BO — boulder · C — campfire · T — tree

The testimony

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

Victor was in the bottom row. leaves 4 of 20 squares
Show it on the board
The squares this one statement leaves Victor: 4 of 20.
Victor was in the riverbank. leaves 2 of 20 squares
Show it on the board
The squares this one statement leaves Victor: 2 of 20.
Gaspar was in row 4. leaves 4 of 20 squares
Show it on the board
The squares this one statement leaves Gaspar: 4 of 20.
Nadia was in the trailhead. leaves 5 of 20 squares
Show it on the board
The squares this one statement leaves Nadia: 5 of 20.
Nadia was in column 3. leaves 1 of 20 squares
Show it on the board
The squares this one statement leaves Nadia: 1 of 20.
Wren was in row 2. leaves 5 of 20 squares
Show it on the board
The squares this one statement leaves Wren: 5 of 20.
Wren was in the leftmost column. leaves 1 of 20 squares

Show the squares Victor had left

The squares still open to Victor once their own statements are taken into account — 2 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:

Victor can only be in Riverbank (row 5, column 2) — down from 2 possible squares.
Gaspar can only be in Campsite (row 4, column 5) — down from 4 possible squares.
Zeno can only be in Campsite (row 1, column 4) — down from 20 possible squares.

The answer

That leaves one arrangement, and one person who could have done it: Gaspar, in Campsite (row 4, column 5).

Show the solved board

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

Easy — The Art School

A 6×6 grid across 4 rooms: Sculpture Hall, Life-Drawing Room, Kiln Room, Gallery. Six statements, twelve squares nobody could stand on, and no assumption anywhere: elimination alone closes it.

Cracked by 21 detectives 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 — bookshelf · C — crate · D — desk · E — easel · F — floor lamp · G — garbage can · PA — painting (square stays free) · PO — potted plant · S — statue

The testimony

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

Lorenzo was beside the painting. leaves 1 of 25 squares
Show it on the board
The squares this one statement leaves Lorenzo: 1 of 25.
Enzo was in the gallery. leaves 6 of 25 squares
Show it on the board
The squares this one statement leaves Enzo: 6 of 25.
Alma was in the sculpture hall. leaves 7 of 25 squares
Show it on the board
The squares this one statement leaves Alma: 7 of 25.
Alma was in row 2. leaves 1 of 25 squares
Show it on the board
The squares this one statement leaves Alma: 1 of 25.
Queralt was beside the bookshelf. leaves 1 of 25 squares
Show it on the board
The squares this one statement leaves Queralt: 1 of 25.
Boris was beside the crate. leaves 2 of 25 squares
Show it on the board
The squares this one statement leaves Boris: 2 of 25.

Show the squares Boris had left

The squares still open to Boris once their own statements are taken into account — 2 of 25.

What the testimony settles on its own

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

Enzo can only be in Gallery (row 1, column 5) — down from 6 possible squares.
Nadia can only be in Sculpture Hall (row 3, column 4) — down from 25 possible squares.
Boris can only be in Kiln Room (row 4, column 2) — down from 2 possible squares.

The answer

That leaves one arrangement, and one person who could have done it: Alma, in Sculpture Hall (row 2, column 6).

Show the solved board

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

Easy · time attack — The Art School

A 6×6 grid across 4 rooms: Sculpture Hall, Kiln Room, Locker Room, Print Room. Seven statements, twelve 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 — bookshelf · C — crate · D — desk · E — easel · F — floor lamp · G — garbage can · PA — painting (square stays free) · PO — potted plant · S — statue

The testimony

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

Quentin was beside the statue. leaves 1 of 26 squares
Show it on the board
The squares this one statement leaves Quentin: 1 of 26.
Lidia was in column 2. leaves 5 of 26 squares
Show it on the board
The squares this one statement leaves Lidia: 5 of 26.
Lidia was in row 3. leaves 1 of 26 squares
Show it on the board
The squares this one statement leaves Lidia: 1 of 26.
Gordon was beside the garbage can. leaves 2 of 26 squares
Show it on the board
The squares this one statement leaves Gordon: 2 of 26.
Horacio was in the locker room. leaves 5 of 26 squares
Show it on the board
The squares this one statement leaves Horacio: 5 of 26.
Irene was in row 4. leaves 5 of 26 squares
Show it on the board
The squares this one statement leaves Irene: 5 of 26.
Irene was in the kiln room or in the locker room. leaves 3 of 26 squares

Show the squares Gordon had left

The squares still open to Gordon 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:

Gordon can only be in Locker Room (row 2, column 5) — down from 2 possible squares.
Horacio can only be in Locker Room (row 1, column 6) — down from 5 possible squares.
Irene can only be in Kiln Room (row 4, column 3) — down from 3 possible squares.
Ruben can only be in Sculpture Hall (row 5, column 1) — down from 26 possible squares.

The answer

That leaves one arrangement, and one person who could have done it: Quentin, in Sculpture Hall (row 6, column 4).

Show the solved board

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

Medium · time attack — The Royal Greenhouse

A 7×7 grid across 6 rooms: Potting shed, Seed bank, Orchid room, Apiary, Terrace, Fountain. Nine statements, sixteen squares nobody could stand on, almost as many rooms as suspects, so a room claim nearly names a square, and no assumption anywhere: elimination alone closes it.

Cracked by 2 detectives 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) · CA — carpet (square stays free) · CH — chest · CR — crate · D — desk · FL — floor lamp · FO — flower bush · G — grandfather clock · M — mirror (square stays free) · S — statue · T — tree · W — window (square stays free)

The testimony

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

Gaspar was in the same row as the crate. leaves 6 of 38 squares
Show it on the board
The squares this one statement leaves Gaspar: 6 of 38.
Yago was beside the armchair. leaves 2 of 38 squares
Show it on the board
The squares this one statement leaves Yago: 2 of 38.
Yago was on the carpet. leaves 1 of 38 squares
Show it on the board
The squares this one statement leaves Yago: 1 of 38.
Ines was in the same column as the grandfather clock. leaves 6 of 38 squares
Show it on the board
The squares this one statement leaves Ines: 6 of 38.
Ines was in the same room as Luna.
Luna was in the same row as the flower bush. leaves 4 of 38 squares
Show it on the board
The squares this one statement leaves Luna: 4 of 38.
Rita was in the same column as the flower bush. leaves 6 of 38 squares
Show it on the board
The squares this one statement leaves Rita: 6 of 38.
Rita was in row 6. leaves 1 of 38 squares
Jimena was beside the armchair. leaves 2 of 38 squares

Show the squares Jimena had left

The squares still open to Jimena once their own statements are taken into account — 2 of 38.

What the testimony settles on its own

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

Gaspar can only be in Apiary (row 3, column 1) — down from 6 possible squares.
Ines can only be in Terrace (row 1, column 5) — down from 6 possible squares.
Luna can only be in Terrace (row 2, column 4) — down from 4 possible squares.
Dorian can only be in Fountain (row 7, column 7) — down from 38 possible squares.
Jimena can only be in Orchid room (row 5, column 3) — down from 2 possible squares.

The answer

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

Show the solved board

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

Medium — The Old Observatory

A 7×7 grid across 5 rooms: Workshop, Library, Office, Cellar, Archive. Nine statements, fifteen squares nobody could stand on, and no assumption anywhere: elimination alone closes it.

Cracked by 19 detectives 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 — bookshelf · CA — carpet (square stays free) · CH — chest · CR — crate · D — desk · G — grandfather clock · P — potted plant · SO — sofa (square stays free) · ST — statue · T — telescope · W — window (square stays free)

The testimony

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

Yolanda was in the same room as the Heiress.
Yolanda was in the same row as the carpet. leaves 7 of 38 squares
Show it on the board
The squares this one statement leaves Yolanda: 7 of 38.
Yolanda was in the leftmost column. leaves 1 of 38 squares
Show it on the board
The squares this one statement leaves Yolanda: 1 of 38.
Frida was in column 3. leaves 7 of 38 squares
Show it on the board
The squares this one statement leaves Frida: 7 of 38.
Quentin was beside a window. leaves 2 of 38 squares
Show it on the board
The squares this one statement leaves Quentin: 2 of 38.
Quentin was somewhere east of Lidia.
Jonas was beside the bookshelf. leaves 1 of 38 squares
Show it on the board
The squares this one statement leaves Jonas: 1 of 38.
Zaida was beside a window. leaves 2 of 38 squares
Show it on the board
The squares this one statement leaves Zaida: 2 of 38.
Lidia was in the same column as the carpet. leaves 9 of 38 squares

Show the squares Quentin had left

The squares still open to Quentin once their own statements are taken into account — 2 of 38.

What the testimony settles on its own

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

Frida can only be in Cellar (row 1, column 3) — down from 7 possible squares.
Quentin can only be in Library (row 6, column 7) — down from 2 possible squares.
Bruno can only be in Office (row 4, column 2) — down from 38 possible squares.
Zaida can only be in Office (row 5, column 4) — down from 2 possible squares.
Lidia can only be in Archive (row 3, column 6) — down from 9 possible squares.

The answer

That leaves one arrangement, and one person who could have done it: Zaida, in Office (row 5, column 4).

Show the solved board

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

Hard — The Cookie Thief

An 8×8 grid across 7 rooms: Living room, Sunroom, Guest Room, Kitchen, Nursery, Dining Room, Hallway. 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 — 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 8 detectives 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 — Christmas tree · GI — gift · GR — grandfather clock · PA — painting (square stays free) · PL — plate of cookies · PO — potted plant · S — stove

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.

Frida was in the same row as the bed. if true, leaves 15 of 55
Show it on the board
The squares this one statement leaves Frida: 15 of 55.
Frida was in the same column as the plate of cookies. if true, leaves 2 of 55
Show it on the board
The squares this one statement leaves Frida: 2 of 55.
Quentin was beside the bookshelf. if true, leaves 2 of 55
Show it on the board
The squares this one statement leaves Quentin: 2 of 55.
Quentin was somewhere south of Alma.
Ignacio was in the same column as a painting. if true, leaves 14 of 55
Show it on the board
The squares this one statement leaves Ignacio: 14 of 55.
Ignacio was in the same row as the gift. if true, leaves 2 of 55
Show it on the board
The squares this one statement leaves Ignacio: 2 of 55.
Rosa and the Chef were in different rooms.
Rosa was in the same column as the bed. if true, leaves 8 of 55
Show it on the board
The squares this one statement leaves Rosa: 8 of 55.
Walter was in the same row as the bookshelf. if true, leaves 6 of 55
Walter was somewhere west of the Curator.
Walter was in the same column as the armchair. if true, leaves 1 of 55
Alma was in the same row as the bookshelf. if true, leaves 49 of 55
Alma was in the nursery or in the hallway. if true, leaves 38 of 55
Margot was in the same column as the carpet. if true, leaves 12 of 55
Margot was in the same row as the plate of cookies. if true, leaves 2 of 55
Margot was somewhere south of Rosa.

Show the squares Frida had left

The squares still open to Frida 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 Frida were the one lying, no arrangement satisfies the rest. Not them.
If Clara were the one lying, no arrangement satisfies the rest. Not them.
If Quentin were the one lying, no arrangement satisfies the rest. Not them.
If Ignacio were the one lying, no arrangement satisfies the rest. Not them.

Another 3 candidates collapse the same way.

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

Read backwards, Alma actually told you:

Alma was NOT in the same row as the bookshelf.
Alma was in neither the nursery nor the hallway.

What the testimony settles on its own

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

Frida can only be in Kitchen (row 7, column 5) — down from 2 possible squares.
Clara can only be in Sunroom (row 8, column 1) — down from 55 possible squares.
Quentin can only be in Nursery (row 6, column 8) — down from 2 possible squares.
Ignacio can only be in Hallway (row 2, column 4) — down from 2 possible squares.
Rosa can only be in Guest Room (row 1, column 3) — down from 8 possible squares.
Alma can only be in Living room (row 4, column 6) — down from 38 possible squares.
Margot can only be in Dining Room (row 3, column 7) — down from 2 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.

Margot's motive would have been blackmail.
Rosa's motive would have been inheritance.
Ignacio's motive would have been jealousy.
Alma's motive would have been ambition.
Walter was not driven by obsession.
Whoever did it was not driven by debts.

The answer

That leaves one arrangement, and one person who could have done it: Walter, in Sunroom (row 5, column 2). Alma lied throughout and was never charged.

The only motive left standing for Walter is buried secrets.

Show the solved board

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

Hard · time attack — The Old Observatory

An 8×8 grid across 6 rooms: Dome, Garden, Terrace, Library, Office, Cellar. Twelve statements, seventeen squares nobody could stand on, 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. A — armchair (square stays free) · B — bookshelf · CA — carpet (square stays free) · CH — chest · CR — crate · D — desk · FL — floor lamp · FO — flower bush · G — grandfather clock · P — potted plant · S — statue · W — window (square stays free)

The testimony

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

Ada was in the same row as the grandfather clock. leaves 6 of 51 squares
Show it on the board
The squares this one statement leaves Ada: 6 of 51.
Ada was in the same column as the bookshelf. leaves 1 of 51 squares
Show it on the board
The squares this one statement leaves Ada: 1 of 51.
Tamara was exactly 2 rows north of the Gardener.
Oscar was in the same room as Walter.
Julian was exactly 2 columns west of the Chef.
Julian was all alone in a room.
Percy was somewhere north of Tamara.
Percy was in the same column as the desk. leaves 5 of 51 squares
Show it on the board
The squares this one statement leaves Percy: 5 of 51.
Percy was exactly 2 rows south of Walter.
Walter was somewhere north of Tamara.
Quentin was in the same column as the statue. leaves 7 of 51 squares
Show it on the board
The squares this one statement leaves Quentin: 7 of 51.
Quentin was somewhere north of the Doctor.

Show the squares Percy had left

The squares still open to Percy once their own statements are taken into account — 5 of 51.

What the testimony settles on its own

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

Julian can only be in Office (row 8, column 4) — down from 51 possible squares.
Percy can only be in Terrace (row 5, column 1) — down from 5 possible squares.
Quentin can only be in Dome (row 2, column 2) — down from 7 possible squares.

The squares that had to be tested

The rest does not fall out on its own. It takes 17 eliminations of the same move: put someone on a square, follow the consequences, and watch the board contradict itself.

Had Tamara stood in Terrace (row 6, column 3), Walter would have had nowhere left to stand. So not there.
Had Oscar stood in Garden (row 4, column 7), Delia would have had nowhere left to stand. So not there.
Had Delia stood in Dome (row 3, column 3), Walter would have had nowhere left to stand. So not there.
Put Walter in Garden (row 3, column 8) and the testimony cannot be satisfied at all. So not there.

Show what goes wrong

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

Another 13 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.

Ada's motive would have been blackmail.
Julian's motive would have been debts.
Percy's motive would have been inheritance.
Oscar's motive would have been ambition.
Quentin was not driven by buried secrets.
Whoever did it was not driven by jealousy.

The answer

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

The only motive left standing for Quentin is revenge.

Show the solved board

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

Expert — The Cookie Thief

A 9×9 grid across 8 rooms: Attic, Sunroom, Nursery, Hallway, Cellar, Kitchen, Dining Room, Guest Room. Fifteen statements, 21 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 6 detectives 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 — Christmas tree · CL — clock · G — gift · PA — painting (square stays free) · PL — plate of cookies · PO — potted plant · S — stove

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.

Fabio was in the same room as Ignacio.
Fabio was in the same row as a painting. if true, leaves 14 of 66
Show it on the board
The squares this one statement leaves Fabio: 14 of 66.
Ulises was somewhere west of the Curator.
Ulises was beside the gift. if true, leaves 2 of 66
Show it on the board
The squares this one statement leaves Ulises: 2 of 66.
Ignacio was in the same row as the potted plant. if true, leaves 58 of 66
Ignacio was in the same column as the armchair. if true, leaves 50 of 66
Bianca was somewhere south of the Gardener.
Margot was in the same column as the armchair. if true, leaves 9 of 66
Show it on the board
The squares this one statement leaves Margot: 9 of 66.
Margot was in the same row as a bed. if true, leaves 2 of 66
Show it on the board
The squares this one statement leaves Margot: 2 of 66.
Rufus was in the same row as the Christmas tree. if true, leaves 7 of 66
Show it on the board
The squares this one statement leaves Rufus: 7 of 66.
Rufus was somewhere east of the Chauffeur.
Greta was in the same column as a stove. if true, leaves 14 of 66
Show it on the board
The squares this one statement leaves Greta: 14 of 66.
Greta was somewhere north of the Diva.
Jimena was in the same column as the Christmas tree. if true, leaves 7 of 66
Exactly 2 people were in the dining room.

Show the squares Ulises had left

The squares still open to Ulises once their own statements are taken into account — 2 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 Fabio were the one lying, no arrangement satisfies the rest. Not them.
If Alistair were the one lying, no arrangement satisfies the rest. Not them.
If Ulises were the one lying, no arrangement satisfies the rest. Not them.
If Bianca were the one lying, no arrangement satisfies the rest. Not them.

Another 4 candidates collapse the same way.

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

Read backwards, Ignacio actually told you:

Ignacio was NOT in the same row as the potted plant.
Ignacio was NOT in the same column as the armchair.

What the testimony settles on its own

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

Ulises can only be in Kitchen (row 9, column 5) — down from 2 possible squares.
Rufus can only be in Guest Room (row 3, column 9) — down from 7 possible squares.

The squares that had to be tested

The rest does not fall out on its own. It takes 82 eliminations of the same move: put someone on a square, follow the consequences, and watch the board contradict itself.

Had Alistair stood in Dining Room (row 1, column 1), Fabio would have had nowhere left to stand. So not there.
Put Ignacio in Hallway (row 2, column 7) and the testimony cannot be satisfied at all. So not there.
Put Bianca in Dining Room (row 4, column 1) and the testimony cannot be satisfied at all. So not there.
Put Margot in Dining Room (row 6, column 1) and the testimony cannot be satisfied at all. So not there.

Show what goes wrong

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

Another 78 squares fell the same way.

Fabio can only be in Hallway (row 1, column 6) — down from 2 possible squares.

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.

Margot's motive would have been revenge.
Rufus's motive would have been blackmail.
Fabio's motive would have been buried secrets.
Jimena's motive would have been obsession.
Ignacio's motive would have been inheritance.
Whoever did it was not driven by debts.
Whoever did it was not driven by ambition.

The answer

That leaves one arrangement, and one person who could have done it: Bianca, in Dining Room (row 6, column 4). Ignacio lied throughout and was never charged.

The only motive left standing for Bianca is jealousy.

Show the solved board

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

Expert · time attack — A Walk in the Park

A 9×9 grid across 7 rooms: Playground, Lawn, Duck pond, Picnic area, Path, Boathouse, Rose garden. Seventeen statements, 22 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; 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. BE — bench · BO — boulder · CA — carpet (square stays free) · CR — crate · FL — floor lamp · FO — flower bush · FU — fountain · S — shrub · 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.

Enzo was somewhere west of the Magician.
Rosa was beside a boulder. if true, leaves 5 of 63
Show it on the board
The squares this one statement leaves Rosa: 5 of 63.
Beatrix was in the same row as the tree. if true, leaves 6 of 63
Show it on the board
The squares this one statement leaves Beatrix: 6 of 63.
Beatrix was in the same column as a fountain. if true, leaves 1 of 63
Show it on the board
The squares this one statement leaves Beatrix: 1 of 63.
Nestor was in the same row as the shrub. if true, leaves 7 of 63
Show it on the board
The squares this one statement leaves Nestor: 7 of 63.
Nestor was in the same column as a window. if true, leaves 2 of 63
Show it on the board
The squares this one statement leaves Nestor: 2 of 63.
Nestor was somewhere east of Clara.
Xavier was in the same column as the crate. if true, leaves 56 of 63
Xavier was somewhere south of the Chauffeur.
Alma was somewhere south of the Diva.
Gaspar was somewhere south of Alma.
Gaspar was somewhere north of Enzo.
Clara was somewhere south of the Gardener.
Clara was somewhere east of the Colonel.
Exactly 2 people were in the path.
Exactly 2 people were in the duck pond.
Exactly 2 people were in the lawn.

Show the squares Nestor had left

The squares still open to Nestor once their own statements are taken into account — 2 of 63.

Unmasking the liar

If Enzo were the one lying, no arrangement satisfies the rest. Not them.
If Rosa were the one lying, no arrangement satisfies the rest. Not them.
If Beatrix were the one lying, no arrangement satisfies the rest. Not them.
If Nestor were the one lying, no arrangement satisfies the rest. Not them.

Another 4 candidates collapse the same way.

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

Read backwards, Xavier actually told you:

Xavier was NOT in the same column as the crate.
Xavier was NOT south of the Chauffeur.

What the testimony settles on its own

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

Nestor can only be in Rose garden (row 8, column 6) — down from 2 possible squares.

The squares that had to be tested

The rest does not fall out on its own. It takes 69 eliminations of the same move: put someone on a square, follow the consequences, and watch the board contradict itself.

Had Olivia stood in Duck pond (row 3, column 7), Gaspar would have had nowhere left to stand. So not there.
Put Xavier in Lawn (row 1, column 1) and the testimony cannot be satisfied at all. So not there.
Put Alma in Boathouse (row 6, column 4) and the testimony cannot be satisfied at all. So not there.
Had Gaspar stood in Picnic area (row 7, column 5), Clara would have had nowhere left to stand. So not there.

Show what goes wrong

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

Another 65 squares fell the same way.

Enzo can only be in Path (row 9, column 2) — down from 2 possible squares.
Rosa can only be in Playground (row 2, column 9) — down from 4 possible squares.

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.

Clara's motive would have been blackmail.
Enzo's motive would have been obsession.
Rosa's motive would have been ambition.
Gaspar's motive would have been revenge.
Alma's motive would have been jealousy.
Beatrix was not driven by debts.
Beatrix was not driven by inheritance.

The answer

That leaves one arrangement, and one person who could have done it: Beatrix, in Lawn (row 5, column 3). Xavier lied throughout and was never charged.

The only motive left standing for Beatrix is buried secrets.

Show the solved board

The only arrangement the testimony allows. Beatrix 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

The standard docket opened quietly across simpler ground, beginning with Movie Night and The Art School, where a guest detective logged the quickest solutions in fourteen and seventeen seconds. The investigation deepened at The Old Observatory, claiming seventeen solutions from thirty-two attempts, with a guest detective pacing the room in forty-eight seconds. Matters grew considerably more tangled at The Cookie Thief, which served as the scene for both the hard and expert boards. Both required motives and unmasked liars across seven and eight rooms, solved fastest by a guest detective in four minutes forty-seven seconds and two minutes twenty seconds, respectively.

The time attack boards drew a sparser, more solitary pursuit against the clock. A guest detective navigated The Hiking Trip in thirty-three seconds and swept through The Art School in forty-two seconds. Two investigators entered The Royal Greenhouse, with the swiftest guest detective wrapping the case in one minute ten seconds across its six rooms.

The day's most grueling timed challenges demanded real endurance. A return to The Old Observatory introduced a motive requirement on an eight-by-eight grid, mastered by a guest detective in eleven minutes two seconds. Finally, A Walk in the Park presented both a liar and a necessary motive across seven rooms, solved in thirteen minutes thirty-five seconds by a guest detective.

Fastest detectives of the day

Beginner: a guest detective — 0m 14s · Easy: a guest detective — 0m 17s · Medium: a guest detective — 0m 48s · Hard: a guest detective — 4m 47s · Expert: a guest detective — 2m 20s · Beginner · time attack: a guest detective — 0m 33s · Easy · time attack: a guest detective — 0m 42s · Medium · time attack: a guest detective — 1m 10s · Hard · time attack: a guest detective — 11m 02s · Expert · time attack: a guest detective — 13m 35s

The solutions

The solved boards — spoilers for every case of 26 August 2026

Key: red ring = the murderer · amber dashes = the lying accomplice · ✕ = the victim · initials mark where each suspect was proved to stand.

Beginner — Movie Night

Ximena (chef) is in custody — the case was closed by 23 detectives.

Easy — The Art School

Alma (doctor) ended the day behind bars — convicted by 19 detectives.

Medium — The Old Observatory

Zaida (chef) was named and charged; 17 detectives closed this one.

Hard — The Cookie Thief

The cell door shut on Walter (magician), on the evidence of 6 detectives. The motive — buried secrets — was proved along with the name. Alma lied for them and was never charged.

Expert — The Cookie Thief

4 detectives put Bianca (diva) away before the day was out. The motive — jealousy — was proved along with the name. Ignacio lied for them and was never charged.

Beginner · time attack — The Hiking Trip

Gaspar (chauffeur) is in custody — the case was closed by one detective.

Easy · time attack — The Art School

Quentin (butler) ended the day behind bars — convicted by one detective.

Medium · time attack — The Royal Greenhouse

Rita (journalist) was named and charged; 2 detectives closed this one.

Hard · time attack — The Old Observatory

The cell door shut on Quentin (magician), on the evidence of one detective. The motive — revenge — was proved along with the name.

Expert · time attack — A Walk in the Park

one detective put Beatrix (diva) away before the day was out. The motive — buried secrets — was proved along with the name. Xavier lied for them and was never charged.

Read this recap in: Català · Deutsch · Español · Euskara · Français · Galego · हिन्दी · Italiano · 日本語 · 한국어 · Nederlands · Português · Русский · 中文

Every day's cases — the calendar · ← the cases for 25 August

Play free — no download