Murder mystery sudoku — the daily cases for 2 September 2026

Every detective in the world got these same crime scenes on 2026-09-02 — 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 — A Walk in the Park

A 5×5 grid across 3 rooms: Picnic area, Rose garden, Kiosk. Seven statements, eight squares nobody could stand on, and enough testimony that the surplus is what pins the last two down.

Cracked by 20 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. BE — bench · BO — boulder · CA — carpet (square stays free) · CR — crate · F — floor lamp · T — tree · W — window (square stays free)

The testimony

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

Jimena was in the rightmost column. leaves 4 of 20 squares
Show it on the board
The squares this one statement leaves Jimena: 4 of 20.
Jimena was in the top row. leaves 1 of 20 squares
Show it on the board
The squares this one statement leaves Jimena: 1 of 20.
Ofelia was in column 3. leaves 5 of 20 squares
Show it on the board
The squares this one statement leaves Ofelia: 5 of 20.
Ofelia was in row 2. leaves 1 of 20 squares
Show it on the board
The squares this one statement leaves Ofelia: 1 of 20.
Paloma was in the bottom row. leaves 4 of 20 squares
Show it on the board
The squares this one statement leaves Paloma: 4 of 20.
Paloma was in the kiosk. leaves 3 of 20 squares
Show it on the board
The squares this one statement leaves Paloma: 3 of 20.
Estela was in the leftmost column. leaves 4 of 20 squares

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:

Xavier can only be in Picnic area (row 3, column 2) — down from 20 possible squares.
Paloma can only be in Kiosk (row 5, column 4) — down from 3 possible squares.
Estela can only be in Picnic area (row 4, column 1) — down from 4 possible squares.

The answer

That leaves one arrangement, and one person who could have done it: Estela, in Picnic area (row 4, column 1).

Show the solved board

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

Beginner · time attack — A Walk in the Park

A 5×5 grid across 4 rooms: Lawn, Boathouse, Picnic area, Bandstand. Six statements, seven squares nobody could stand on, 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. B — bench · CA — carpet (square stays free) · CR — crate · F — flower bush · S — shrub · W — window (square stays free)

The testimony

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

Ruben was in column 3. leaves 4 of 20 squares
Show it on the board
The squares this one statement leaves Ruben: 4 of 20.
Ruben was in the lawn. leaves 2 of 20 squares
Show it on the board
The squares this one statement leaves Ruben: 2 of 20.
Estela was in the bottom row. leaves 5 of 20 squares
Show it on the board
The squares this one statement leaves Estela: 5 of 20.
Estela was in column 4. leaves 1 of 20 squares
Show it on the board
The squares this one statement leaves Estela: 1 of 20.
Jonas was in the boathouse. leaves 4 of 20 squares
Show it on the board
The squares this one statement leaves Jonas: 4 of 20.
Nadia was in the bandstand. leaves 4 of 20 squares
Show it on the board
The squares this one statement leaves Nadia: 4 of 20.

Show the squares Ruben had left

The squares still open to Ruben 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:

Ruben can only be in Lawn (row 3, column 3) — down from 2 possible squares.
Jonas can only be in Boathouse (row 4, column 1) — down from 4 possible squares.
Zaida can only be in Lawn (row 2, column 2) — down from 20 possible squares.
Nadia can only be in Bandstand (row 1, column 5) — down from 4 possible squares.

The answer

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

Show the solved board

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

Easy — A Walk in the Park

A 6×6 grid across 4 rooms: Boathouse, Duck pond, Bandstand, Lawn. Six statements, eight squares nobody could stand on, and no assumption anywhere: elimination alone closes it.

Cracked by 18 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.

The testimony

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

Vivienne was in the lawn. leaves 8 of 30 squares
Show it on the board
The squares this one statement leaves Vivienne: 8 of 30.
Alistair was beside the crate. leaves 1 of 30 squares
Show it on the board
The squares this one statement leaves Alistair: 1 of 30.
Kurt was beside the window. leaves 1 of 30 squares
Show it on the board
The squares this one statement leaves Kurt: 1 of 30.
Clara was beside the tree. leaves 2 of 30 squares
Show it on the board
The squares this one statement leaves Clara: 2 of 30.
Ruben was in row 2. leaves 6 of 30 squares
Show it on the board
The squares this one statement leaves Ruben: 6 of 30.
Ruben was in column 4. leaves 1 of 30 squares
Show it on the board
The squares this one statement leaves Ruben: 1 of 30.

Show the squares Clara had left

The squares still open to Clara once their own statements are taken into account — 2 of 30.

What the testimony settles on its own

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

Vivienne can only be in Lawn (row 6, column 3) — down from 8 possible squares.
Jimena can only be in Duck pond (row 3, column 5) — down from 30 possible squares.
Clara can only be in Lawn (row 4, column 1) — down from 2 possible squares.

The answer

That leaves one arrangement, and one person who could have done it: Ruben, in Duck pond (row 2, column 4).

Show the solved board

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

Easy · time attack — A Walk in the Park

A 6×6 grid across 4 rooms: Lawn, Picnic area, Boathouse, Path. Eight statements, nine squares nobody could stand on, 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. BE — bench · BO — boulder · C — carpet (square stays free) · FL — floor lamp · FO — flower bush · S — shrub · T — tree · W — window (square stays free)

The testimony

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

Rufus was beside the tree. leaves 3 of 29 squares
Show it on the board
The squares this one statement leaves Rufus: 3 of 29.
Rufus was beside the flower bush. leaves 1 of 29 squares
Show it on the board
The squares this one statement leaves Rufus: 1 of 29.
Helena was beside the carpet. leaves 1 of 29 squares
Show it on the board
The squares this one statement leaves Helena: 1 of 29.
Bruno was in the picnic area. leaves 15 of 29 squares
Vera was in row 3. leaves 5 of 29 squares
Show it on the board
The squares this one statement leaves Vera: 5 of 29.
Vera was in the picnic area. leaves 2 of 29 squares
Show it on the board
The squares this one statement leaves Vera: 2 of 29.
Zaida was in row 4. leaves 6 of 29 squares
Show it on the board
The squares this one statement leaves Zaida: 6 of 29.
Zaida was in the rightmost column. leaves 1 of 29 squares

Show the squares Vera had left

The squares still open to Vera once their own statements are taken into account — 2 of 29.

What the testimony settles on its own

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

Bruno can only be in Picnic area (row 5, column 2) — down from 15 possible squares.
Alistair can only be in Boathouse (row 1, column 5) — down from 29 possible squares.
Vera can only be in Picnic area (row 3, column 1) — down from 2 possible squares.

The answer

That leaves one arrangement, and one person who could have done it: Helena, in Boathouse (row 2, column 4).

Show the solved board

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

Medium · time attack — A Walk in the Park

A 7×7 grid across 5 rooms: Kiosk, Lawn, Duck pond, Boathouse, Playground. Nine statements, eleven squares nobody could stand on, and one round of assume-and-test after elimination ran dry — and one of the seven 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. BE — bench · BO — boulder · CA — carpet (square stays free) · CR — crate · FL — floor lamp · FO — flower bush · S — shrub · T — tree · W — window (square stays free)

The testimony

What each person said. One of these 7 is the killer's accomplice and every word they said is false — but not which one, not yet.

Tesa was beside the bench. if true, leaves 2 of 41
Show it on the board
The squares this one statement leaves Tesa: 2 of 41.
Tesa was in the same room as Gaspar.
Victor was in row 2. if true, leaves 6 of 41
Show it on the board
The squares this one statement leaves Victor: 6 of 41.
Victor was touching the outer wall. if true, leaves 1 of 41
Show it on the board
The squares this one statement leaves Victor: 1 of 41.
Jimena was somewhere north of Victor.
Nora was beside the boulder. if true, leaves 1 of 41
Show it on the board
The squares this one statement leaves Nora: 1 of 41.
Gaspar was beside a shrub. if true, leaves 3 of 41
Show it on the board
The squares this one statement leaves Gaspar: 3 of 41.
Quentin was somewhere east of Jimena.
Quentin was in the same row as the bench. if true, leaves 37 of 41

Show the squares Tesa had left

The squares still open to Tesa once their own statements are taken into account — 2 of 41.

Unmasking the liar

One of these 7 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 Tesa were the one lying, no arrangement satisfies the rest. Not them.
If Victor were the one lying, no arrangement satisfies the rest. Not them.
If Jimena were the one lying, no arrangement satisfies the rest. Not them.
If Nora were the one lying, no arrangement satisfies the rest. Not them.

Another 2 candidates collapse the same way.

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

Read backwards, Quentin actually told you:

Quentin was NOT east of Jimena.
Quentin was NOT in the same row as the bench.

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 Lawn (row 6, column 4) — down from 2 possible squares.
Jimena can only be in Kiosk (row 1, column 5) — down from 41 possible squares.
Gaspar can only be in Lawn (row 7, column 2) — down from 3 possible squares.
Ines can only be in Duck pond (row 4, column 6) — down from 41 possible squares.
Quentin can only be in Boathouse (row 3, column 3) — down from 37 possible squares.

The answer

That leaves one arrangement, and one person who could have done it: Victor, in Duck pond (row 2, column 7). Quentin lied throughout and was never charged.

Show the solved board

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

Medium — A Walk in the Park

An 8×7 grid across 5 rooms: Picnic area, Duck pond, Lawn, Playground, Rose garden. Thirteen statements, eight squares nobody could stand on, and enough testimony that the surplus is what pins the last two down.

Cracked by 16 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. Nobody can stand on one, which is why the counts above are of free squares, not of all of them. BE — bench · BO — boulder · F — flower bush · S — shrub · T — tree

The testimony

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

Ignacio was beside a flower bush. leaves 5 of 48 squares
Show it on the board
The squares this one statement leaves Ignacio: 5 of 48.
Enzo was in the same room as the Doctor.
Enzo was somewhere east of Lorenzo.
Enzo was somewhere east of the Magician.
Enzo was in the same column as the tree. leaves 5 of 48 squares
Show it on the board
The squares this one statement leaves Enzo: 5 of 48.
Dante was somewhere north of Ofelia.
Dante was in the same room as Ofelia.
Lorenzo was in the same column as a shrub. leaves 9 of 48 squares
Show it on the board
The squares this one statement leaves Lorenzo: 9 of 48.
Ofelia was in column 2. leaves 7 of 48 squares
Show it on the board
The squares this one statement leaves Ofelia: 7 of 48.
Ofelia was in the same row as a bench. leaves 2 of 48 squares
Show it on the board
The squares this one statement leaves Ofelia: 2 of 48.
Julian was somewhere north of the Colonel.
Julian was in the same row as the boulder. leaves 7 of 48 squares
Show it on the board
The squares this one statement leaves Julian: 7 of 48.
Nobody was in the playground.

Show the squares Ofelia had left

The squares still open to Ofelia once their own statements are taken into account — 2 of 48.

What the testimony settles on its own

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

Ignacio can only be in Lawn (row 4, column 7) — down from 5 possible squares.
Enzo can only be in Rose garden (row 6, column 5) — down from 5 possible squares.
Dante can only be in Rose garden (row 5, column 4) — down from 48 possible squares.
Ursula can only be in Lawn (row 3, column 8) — down from 48 possible squares.
Lorenzo can only be in Picnic area (row 1, column 3) — down from 9 possible squares.
Ofelia can only be in Rose garden (row 7, column 2) — down from 2 possible squares.
Julian can only be in Duck pond (row 2, column 1) — down from 7 possible squares.

The answer

That leaves one arrangement, and one person who could have done it: Ignacio, in Lawn (row 4, column 7).

Show the solved board

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

Hard — A Walk in the Park

A 9×8 grid across 6 rooms: Kiosk, Path, Playground, Picnic area, Boathouse, Duck pond. Thirteen statements, fourteen squares nobody could stand on, and one round of assume-and-test after elimination ran dry.

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. 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, and how much of the board it rules out.

Clara was in the same row as a floor lamp. leaves 15 of 61 squares
Show it on the board
The squares this one statement leaves Clara: 15 of 61.
Victor was exactly 1 row north of the Butler.
Victor was in the same column as the bench. leaves 6 of 61 squares
Show it on the board
The squares this one statement leaves Victor: 6 of 61.
Victor was exactly 3 columns east of Clara.
Gilda was in the same column as the shrub. leaves 7 of 61 squares
Show it on the board
The squares this one statement leaves Gilda: 7 of 61.
Gilda was all alone in a room.
Marco was exactly 1 column west of Frida.
Marco was in row 7. leaves 7 of 61 squares
Show it on the board
The squares this one statement leaves Marco: 7 of 61.
Jimena was exactly 2 columns east of Victor.
Jimena was all alone in a room.
Frida was touching the outer wall. leaves 27 of 61 squares
Elias was in the same row as the carpet. leaves 9 of 61 squares
Show it on the board
The squares this one statement leaves Elias: 9 of 61.
Elias was in the same column as the crate. leaves 1 of 61 squares
Show it on the board
The squares this one statement leaves Elias: 1 of 61.

Show the squares Victor had left

The squares still open to Victor once their own statements are taken into account — 6 of 61.

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 Boathouse (row 1, column 6) — down from 6 possible squares.

The squares that had to be tested

The rest does not fall out on its own. It takes 31 eliminations of the same move: put someone on a square, follow the consequences, and watch the board contradict itself.

Had Clara stood in Duck pond (row 7, column 3), Marco would have had nowhere left to stand. So not there.
Put Simon in Boathouse (row 3, column 3) and the testimony cannot be satisfied at all. So not there.
Had Gilda stood in Playground (row 4, column 1), Jimena would have had nowhere left to stand. So not there.
Put Marco in Duck pond (row 7, column 2) and the testimony cannot be satisfied at all. So not there.

Show what goes wrong

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

Another 27 squares fell the same way.

The answer

That leaves one arrangement, and one person who could have done it: Frida, in Kiosk (row 8, column 5).

Show the solved board

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

Hard · time attack — A Walk in the Park

A 10×8 grid across 6 rooms: Picnic area, Boathouse, Duck pond, Path, Playground, Kiosk. Eleven statements, sixteen 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. 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, and how much of the board it rules out.

Kurt was in the same room as Horacio.
Kurt was exactly 2 columns east of the Doctor.
Bianca was in the same column as the shrub. leaves 6 of 68 squares
Show it on the board
The squares this one statement leaves Bianca: 6 of 68.
Paloma was somewhere west of Vivienne.
Paloma was in the same row as the tree. leaves 7 of 68 squares
Show it on the board
The squares this one statement leaves Paloma: 7 of 68.
Vivienne was exactly 4 rows south of Horacio.
Elena was all alone in a room.
Simon was in the same column as a carpet. leaves 29 of 68 squares
Horacio was in column 2. leaves 6 of 68 squares
Show it on the board
The squares this one statement leaves Horacio: 6 of 68.
Horacio was exactly 3 rows north of the Doctor.
Nobody was in the picnic area.

Show the squares Bianca had left

The squares still open to Bianca once their own statements are taken into account — 6 of 68.

What the testimony settles on its own

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

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

The squares that had to be tested

The rest does not fall out on its own. It takes 48 eliminations of the same move: put someone on a square, follow the consequences, and watch the board contradict itself.

Had Kurt stood in Boathouse (row 2, column 3), Paloma would have had nowhere left to stand. So not there.
Put Bianca in Boathouse (row 3, column 4) and the testimony cannot be satisfied at all. So not there.
Had Paloma stood in Boathouse (row 2, column 3), Kurt would have had nowhere left to stand. So not there.
Put Abel in Boathouse (row 2, column 3) and the testimony cannot be satisfied at all. So not there.

Show what goes wrong

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

Another 44 squares fell the same way.

Bianca can only be in Playground (row 8, column 4) — 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.

Vivienne's motive would have been inheritance.
Horacio's motive would have been buried secrets.
Paloma's motive would have been revenge.
Elena's motive would have been blackmail.
Whoever did it was not driven by debts.
Whoever did it was not driven by obsession.

The answer

That leaves one arrangement, and one person who could have done it: Bianca, in Playground (row 8, column 4).

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 — A Walk in the Park

A 10×9 grid across 8 rooms: Duck pond, Playground, Rose garden, Bandstand, Lawn, Boathouse, Path, Kiosk. Fourteen statements, eighteen 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 7 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. 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, and how much of the board it rules out.

Wanda and Milo were alone together in one room.
Wanda was exactly 2 rows north of the Chef.
Lidia was exactly 2 rows south of Bianca.
Oscar was exactly 2 rows south of Lidia.
Milo was exactly 7 rows north of the Butler.
Milo was exactly 5 rows north of the Chef.
Elias was all alone in a room.
Celeste was exactly 8 columns east of Elias.
Nora was all alone in a room.
Nora was exactly 3 columns west of the Chef.
Nora was exactly 6 columns east of Milo.
Nora was exactly 3 columns east of Lidia.
Bianca was all alone in a room.
Exactly 2 people were in the lawn.

What the testimony settles on its own

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

Wanda can only be in Duck pond (row 4, column 3) — down from 75 possible squares.
Milo can only be in Duck pond (row 1, column 1) — down from 75 possible squares.
Elias can only be in Kiosk (row 8, column 2) — down from 75 possible squares.
Celeste can only be in Boathouse (row 6, column 10) — down from 75 possible squares.

The squares that had to be tested

The rest does not fall out on its own. It takes 25 eliminations of the same move: put someone on a square, follow the consequences, and watch the board contradict itself.

Had Sol stood in Rose garden (row 3, column 6), Nora would have had nowhere left to stand. So not there.
Had Lidia stood in Playground (row 7, column 4), Oscar would have had nowhere left to stand. So not there.
Put Oscar in Boathouse (row 7, column 9) and the testimony cannot be satisfied at all. So not there.
Put Nora in Bandstand (row 5, column 7) and the testimony cannot be satisfied at all. So not there.

Show what goes wrong

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

Another 21 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.

Wanda's motive would have been inheritance.
Milo's motive would have been revenge.
Nora's motive would have been jealousy.
Elias's motive would have been blackmail.
Celeste's motive would have been ambition.
Whoever did it was not driven by buried secrets.
Oscar was not driven by debts.

The answer

That leaves one arrangement, and one person who could have done it: Oscar, in Lawn (row 7, column 8).

The only motive left standing for Oscar is obsession.

Show the solved board

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

Expert · time attack — A Walk in the Park

A 9×9 grid across 8 rooms: Bandstand, Path, Boathouse, Kiosk, Lawn, Picnic area, Rose garden, Playground. Twelve statements, seventeen 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.

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. 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, and how much of the board it rules out.

Cesar was exactly 3 rows north of the Heiress.
Gaspar and Quentin were alone together in one room.
Elias was exactly 1 row south of Flora.
Elias and Tamara were alone together in one room.
Elias was exactly 1 column west of the Heiress.
Flora was all alone in a room.
Quentin was exactly 1 column west of Julia.
Paloma was exactly 2 columns west of the Chef.
Julia was somewhere south of the Curator.
Tamara was somewhere west of Julia.
Exactly 2 people were in the lawn.
Exactly 2 people were in the rose garden.

The squares that had to be tested

The rest does not fall out on its own. It takes 346 eliminations across 2 rounds of the same move: put someone on a square, follow the consequences, and watch the board contradict itself.

Had Cesar stood in Boathouse (row 1, column 3), Gaspar would have had nowhere left to stand. So not there.
Had Gaspar stood in Boathouse (row 1, column 7), Quentin would have had nowhere left to stand. So not there.
Put Elias in Kiosk (row 2, column 1) and the testimony cannot be satisfied at all. So not there.
Had Helena stood in Boathouse (row 1, column 1), Elias would have had nowhere left to stand. So not there.

Show what goes wrong

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

Another 342 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.

Quentin's motive would have been buried secrets.
Gaspar's motive would have been blackmail.
Elias's motive would have been ambition.
Cesar's motive would have been inheritance.
Flora's motive would have been revenge.
Whoever did it was not driven by jealousy.
Julia was not driven by obsession.

The answer

That leaves one arrangement, and one person who could have done it: Julia, in Lawn (row 9, column 9).

The only motive left standing for Julia is debts.

Show the solved board

The only arrangement the testimony allows. Julia 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 Cartographer’s Debt — The cache at A Walk in the Park came up — found, marked, logged. Not the thing that went missing on day one, but something.

The day’s inquiries took us through A Walk in the Park across ten separate scenes. On the untimed beat, chentian led the 5x5 beginner case with a swift twelve-second solve out of seventeen successes, while a guest detective claimed the 6x6 easy board in fourteen seconds. The 8x7 medium investigation saw twelve investigators reach the truth, headed again by chentian in two minutes and ten seconds. The assignments grew sterner as seven detectives cleared the 9x8 hard grid, topped by a guest detective in one minute and fifteen seconds. The untimed 10x9 expert challenge required establishing a motive across eight rooms, where a guest detective paced the five successful sleuths with a time of four minutes and twenty-five seconds.

The timed division saw very light traffic, yet chentian swept every single board. Opening runs through the beginner and easy cases took fourteen and ten seconds respectively. A deceptive witness entered the fray during the 7x7 medium time attack, though chentian sorted out the liar in seven minutes and thirty-six seconds. The timed hard and expert boards both demanded motives; chentian stood alone to unravel the 10x8 hard case in four minutes and eighteen seconds, then closed the 9x9 expert scene in three minutes and forty-two seconds.

Fastest detectives of the day

Beginner: chentian — 0m 12s · Easy: a guest detective — 0m 14s · Medium: chentian — 2m 10s · Hard: a guest detective — 1m 15s · Expert: a guest detective — 4m 25s · Beginner · time attack: chentian — 0m 14s · Easy · time attack: chentian — 0m 10s · Medium · time attack: chentian — 7m 36s · Hard · time attack: chentian — 4m 18s · Expert · time attack: chentian — 3m 42s