Murder mystery sudoku — the daily cases for 7 September 2026

Every detective in the world got these same crime scenes on 2026-09-07 — 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: Path, Picnic area, Duck pond. Seven statements, five squares nobody could stand on, and enough testimony that the surplus is what pins the last two down.

Cracked by 11 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 · C — crate · FL — floor lamp · FO — flower bush

The testimony

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

Sofia was in the path. leaves 7 of 20 squares
Show it on the board
The squares this one statement leaves Sofia: 7 of 20.
Sofia was in row 3. leaves 1 of 20 squares
Show it on the board
The squares this one statement leaves Sofia: 1 of 20.
Victor was in the duck pond. leaves 6 of 20 squares
Show it on the board
The squares this one statement leaves Victor: 6 of 20.
Kaspar was in row 2. leaves 4 of 20 squares
Show it on the board
The squares this one statement leaves Kaspar: 4 of 20.
Kaspar was in the rightmost column. leaves 1 of 20 squares
Show it on the board
The squares this one statement leaves Kaspar: 1 of 20.
Queralt was in the leftmost column. leaves 4 of 20 squares
Show it on the board
The squares this one statement leaves Queralt: 4 of 20.
Queralt was beside the floor lamp. 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 — 6 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:

Wanda can only be in Picnic area (row 1, column 3) — down from 20 possible squares.
Victor can only be in Duck pond (row 4, column 4) — down from 6 possible squares.

The answer

That leaves one arrangement, and one person who could have done it: Kaspar, in Picnic area (row 2, column 5).

Show the solved board

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

Beginner · time attack — A Walk in the Park

A 5×5 grid across 4 rooms: Duck pond, Bandstand, Picnic area, Lawn. Seven statements, five squares nobody could stand on, and enough testimony that the surplus is what pins the last two down.

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. Nobody can stand on one, which is why the counts above are of free squares, not of all of them. B — boulder · FL — floor lamp · FO — fountain · T — tree

The testimony

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

Ada was in column 3. leaves 4 of 20 squares
Show it on the board
The squares this one statement leaves Ada: 4 of 20.
Ada was in the lawn. leaves 2 of 20 squares
Show it on the board
The squares this one statement leaves Ada: 2 of 20.
Boris was in the picnic area. leaves 5 of 20 squares
Show it on the board
The squares this one statement leaves Boris: 5 of 20.
Boris was in column 2. leaves 1 of 20 squares
Show it on the board
The squares this one statement leaves Boris: 1 of 20.
Margot was in the leftmost column. leaves 4 of 20 squares
Show it on the board
The squares this one statement leaves Margot: 4 of 20.
Margot was in the bandstand. leaves 2 of 20 squares
Show it on the board
The squares this one statement leaves Margot: 2 of 20.
Yago was in the bandstand. leaves 7 of 20 squares

Show the squares Ada had left

The squares still open to Ada 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:

Ada can only be in Lawn (row 5, column 3) — down from 2 possible squares.
Margot can only be in Bandstand (row 4, column 1) — down from 2 possible squares.
Yago can only be in Bandstand (row 3, column 5) — down from 7 possible squares.
Horacio can only be in Picnic area (row 2, column 4) — down from 20 possible squares.

The answer

That leaves one arrangement, and one person who could have done it: Boris, in Picnic area (row 1, column 2).

Show the solved board

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

Easy — A Walk in the Park

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

Cracked by 10 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 · T — tree

The testimony

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

Jonas was in the leftmost column. leaves 4 of 29 squares
Show it on the board
The squares this one statement leaves Jonas: 4 of 29.
Jonas was in row 4. leaves 1 of 29 squares
Show it on the board
The squares this one statement leaves Jonas: 1 of 29.
Celeste was in the lawn. leaves 13 of 29 squares
Celeste was in the top row. leaves 3 of 29 squares
Show it on the board
The squares this one statement leaves Celeste: 3 of 29.
Boris was in the lawn. leaves 13 of 29 squares
Percy was in the duck pond or in the lawn. leaves 16 of 29 squares
Sofia was beside the bench. leaves 3 of 29 squares
Show it on the board
The squares this one statement leaves Sofia: 3 of 29.

Show the squares Celeste had left

The squares still open to Celeste once their own statements are taken into account — 3 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:

Hugo can only be in Playground (row 3, column 2) — down from 29 possible squares.
Celeste can only be in Lawn (row 1, column 6) — down from 3 possible squares.
Boris can only be in Lawn (row 2, column 4) — down from 13 possible squares.
Percy can only be in Duck pond (row 5, column 3) — down from 16 possible squares.
Sofia can only be in Lawn (row 6, column 5) — down from 3 possible squares.

The answer

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

Show the solved board

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

Easy · time attack — A Walk in the Park

A 6×6 grid across 5 rooms: Playground, Lawn, Boathouse, Picnic area, Path. Nine statements, ten squares nobody could stand on, and enough testimony that the surplus is what pins the last two down.

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.

The testimony

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

Ruben was in the bottom row. leaves 3 of 28 squares
Show it on the board
The squares this one statement leaves Ruben: 3 of 28.
Ruben was in the playground. leaves 1 of 28 squares
Show it on the board
The squares this one statement leaves Ruben: 1 of 28.
Ada was in the playground. leaves 5 of 28 squares
Show it on the board
The squares this one statement leaves Ada: 5 of 28.
Ivan was in column 2. leaves 5 of 28 squares
Show it on the board
The squares this one statement leaves Ivan: 5 of 28.
Ivan was on the carpet. leaves 2 of 28 squares
Show it on the board
The squares this one statement leaves Ivan: 2 of 28.
Katia was in row 3. leaves 5 of 28 squares
Show it on the board
The squares this one statement leaves Katia: 5 of 28.
Katia was in the picnic area. leaves 1 of 28 squares
Dora was in the path. leaves 8 of 28 squares
Dora was in the top row. leaves 2 of 28 squares

Show the squares Ivan had left

The squares still open to Ivan once their own statements are taken into account — 2 of 28.

What the testimony settles on its own

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

Ada can only be in Playground (row 5, column 5) — down from 5 possible squares.
Ivan can only be in Boathouse (row 4, column 2) — down from 2 possible squares.
Bruno can only be in Picnic area (row 2, column 1) — down from 28 possible squares.
Dora can only be in Path (row 1, column 4) — down from 2 possible squares.

The answer

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

Show the solved board

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

Medium · time attack — A Walk in the Park

An 8×7 grid across 6 rooms: Kiosk, Picnic area, Bandstand, Rose garden, Path, Playground. Eight statements, fifteen 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.

The testimony

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

Percy was in the bandstand or in the rose garden. leaves 10 of 44 squares
Show it on the board
The squares this one statement leaves Percy: 10 of 44.
Percy was in the same column as the carpet. leaves 1 of 44 squares
Show it on the board
The squares this one statement leaves Percy: 1 of 44.
Alma was in the same room as Ruben.
Olivia was beside the floor lamp. leaves 2 of 44 squares
Show it on the board
The squares this one statement leaves Olivia: 2 of 44.
Ruben was beside the bench. leaves 3 of 44 squares
Show it on the board
The squares this one statement leaves Ruben: 3 of 44.
Milo was in the same row as a window. leaves 14 of 44 squares
Show it on the board
The squares this one statement leaves Milo: 14 of 44.
Dorian was beside a window. leaves 3 of 44 squares
Show it on the board
The squares this one statement leaves Dorian: 3 of 44.
Nobody was in the kiosk.

Show the squares Olivia had left

The squares still open to Olivia once their own statements are taken into account — 2 of 44.

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 Playground (row 1, column 1) — down from 44 possible squares.
Alma can only be in Picnic area (row 5, column 3) — down from 44 possible squares.
Olivia can only be in Path (row 6, column 7) — down from 2 possible squares.
Ruben can only be in Picnic area (row 4, column 6) — down from 3 possible squares.
Milo can only be in Playground (row 2, column 2) — down from 14 possible squares.
Dorian can only be in Picnic area (row 3, column 4) — down from 3 possible squares.

The answer

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

Show the solved board

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

Medium — A Walk in the Park

A 7×7 grid across 6 rooms: Lawn, Bandstand, Path, Boathouse, Duck pond, Rose garden. Nine statements, thirteen 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 9 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.

Flora was beside a window. leaves 3 of 39 squares
Show it on the board
The squares this one statement leaves Flora: 3 of 39.
Tamara was in the same row as the flower bush. leaves 4 of 39 squares
Show it on the board
The squares this one statement leaves Tamara: 4 of 39.
Alistair was in the bandstand or in the duck pond. leaves 12 of 39 squares
Show it on the board
The squares this one statement leaves Alistair: 12 of 39.
Alistair was in the same row as the crate. leaves 1 of 39 squares
Show it on the board
The squares this one statement leaves Alistair: 1 of 39.
Wanda was in the lawn or in the rose garden. leaves 13 of 39 squares
Show it on the board
The squares this one statement leaves Wanda: 13 of 39.
Wanda was in the same column as the fountain. leaves 2 of 39 squares
Show it on the board
The squares this one statement leaves Wanda: 2 of 39.
Ivan was touching the outer wall. leaves 19 of 39 squares
Ivan was in column 3. leaves 2 of 39 squares
Dorian was beside the shrub. leaves 3 of 39 squares

Show the squares Wanda had left

The squares still open to Wanda once their own statements are taken into account — 2 of 39.

What the testimony settles on its own

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

Flora can only be in Path (row 5, column 5) — down from 3 possible squares.
Percy can only be in Duck pond (row 2, column 6) — down from 39 possible squares.
Tamara can only be in Lawn (row 7, column 2) — down from 4 possible squares.
Wanda can only be in Lawn (row 6, column 1) — down from 2 possible squares.
Ivan can only be in Rose garden (row 1, column 3) — down from 2 possible squares.
Dorian can only be in Rose garden (row 3, column 4) — down from 3 possible squares.

The answer

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

Show the solved board

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

Hard — A Walk in the Park

A 10×8 grid across 6 rooms: Picnic area, Boathouse, Lawn, Kiosk, Path, Duck pond. Fourteen 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.

The testimony

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

Wanda was in the same room as the Diva.
Wanda was beside the carpet. leaves 6 of 68 squares
Show it on the board
The squares this one statement leaves Wanda: 6 of 68.
Kaspar was exactly 7 rows north of Milo.
Milo was in the same room as the Gardener.
Milo was exactly 1 column west of Victor.
Milo was exactly 7 columns east of the Colonel.
Rufus was somewhere west of the Diva.
Paloma was in the same column as a boulder. leaves 13 of 68 squares
Show it on the board
The squares this one statement leaves Paloma: 13 of 68.
Paloma was somewhere north of the Gardener.
Victor was in the same column as the carpet. leaves 14 of 68 squares
Show it on the board
The squares this one statement leaves Victor: 14 of 68.
Victor was exactly 2 rows south of the Gardener.
Gordon was in the same row as the carpet. leaves 17 of 68 squares
Show it on the board
The squares this one statement leaves Gordon: 17 of 68.
Nobody was in the picnic area.
Nobody was in the duck pond.

Show the squares Wanda had left

The squares still open to Wanda 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:

Kaspar can only be in Path (row 1, column 3) — down from 68 possible squares.
Milo can only be in Boathouse (row 8, column 8) — down from 68 possible squares.

The squares that had to be tested

The rest does not fall out on its own. It takes 13 eliminations of the same move: put someone on a square, follow the consequences, and watch the board contradict itself.

Had Wanda stood in Kiosk (row 5, column 7), Rufus would have had nowhere left to stand. So not there.
Put Ursula in Kiosk (row 2, column 10) and the testimony cannot be satisfied at all. So not there.
Had Rufus stood in Boathouse (row 3, column 1), Paloma would have had nowhere left to stand. So not there.
Put Paloma in Kiosk (row 4, column 6) and the testimony cannot be satisfied at all. So not there.

Show what goes wrong

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

Another 9 squares fell the same way.

The answer

That leaves one arrangement, and one person who could have done it: Kaspar, in Path (row 1, column 3).

Show the solved board

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

Hard · time attack — A Walk in the Park

A 9×8 grid across 7 rooms: Playground, Bandstand, Kiosk, Duck pond, Path, Lawn, Boathouse. Thirteen statements, fourteen 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 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.

The testimony

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

Rufus was somewhere south of the Doctor.
Rufus was all alone in a room.
Rufus was in the same column as the crate. leaves 6 of 61 squares
Show it on the board
The squares this one statement leaves Rufus: 6 of 61.
Greta was somewhere east of the Journalist.
Wanda was exactly 2 rows south of Petra.
Wanda was somewhere north of Greta.
Wanda was all alone in a room.
Xavier was somewhere west of Greta.
Olivia was in the same row as the tree. leaves 7 of 61 squares
Show it on the board
The squares this one statement leaves Olivia: 7 of 61.
Jonas was in the same row as the boulder. leaves 7 of 61 squares
Show it on the board
The squares this one statement leaves Jonas: 7 of 61.
Jonas was exactly 3 columns west of Greta.
Jonas was all alone in a room.
Petra was in the same column as a window. leaves 14 of 61 squares
Show it on the board
The squares this one statement leaves Petra: 14 of 61.

Show the squares Rufus had left

The squares still open to Rufus 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:

Rufus can only be in Kiosk (row 7, column 7) — down from 6 possible squares.

The squares that had to be tested

The rest does not fall out on its own. It takes 60 eliminations of the same move: put someone on a square, follow the consequences, and watch the board contradict itself.

Had Greta stood in Lawn (row 5, column 4), Olivia would have had nowhere left to stand. So not there.
Had Ulises stood in Boathouse (row 1, column 1), Petra would have had nowhere left to stand. So not there.
Had Wanda stood in Boathouse (row 3, column 2), Greta would have had nowhere left to stand. So not there.
Had Xavier stood in Boathouse (row 1, column 1), Petra would have had nowhere left to stand. So not there.

Show what goes wrong

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

Another 56 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.

Greta's motive would have been jealousy.
Rufus's motive would have been buried secrets.
Jonas's motive would have been debts.
Xavier's motive would have been blackmail.
Whoever did it was not driven by ambition.
Whoever did it was not driven by inheritance.

The answer

That leaves one arrangement, and one person who could have done it: Petra, in Duck pond (row 1, column 9).

The only motive left standing for Petra is obsession.

Show the solved board

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

Expert — A Walk in the Park

A 9×9 grid across 7 rooms: Playground, Duck pond, Rose garden, Lawn, Path, Bandstand, Picnic area. Nineteen statements, thirteen 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 4 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. One of these 9 is the killer's accomplice and every word they said is false — but not which one, not yet.

Ruben was somewhere south of the Doctor.
Selma was in the same row as a boulder. if true, leaves 14 of 68
Show it on the board
The squares this one statement leaves Selma: 14 of 68.
Selma was somewhere south of the Doctor.
Wanda was in the same row as a crate. if true, leaves 15 of 68
Show it on the board
The squares this one statement leaves Wanda: 15 of 68.
Katia was in the same row as the bench. if true, leaves 8 of 68
Show it on the board
The squares this one statement leaves Katia: 8 of 68.
Katia was somewhere north of Selma.
Katia was somewhere west of Wanda.
Katia was in the same column as a boulder. if true, leaves 2 of 68
Show it on the board
The squares this one statement leaves Katia: 2 of 68.
Katia was somewhere south of Lorenzo.
Katia was somewhere south of the Heiress.
Gilda was somewhere west of the Magician.
Ulises was in the same row as a fountain. if true, leaves 14 of 68
Show it on the board
The squares this one statement leaves Ulises: 14 of 68.
Ulises was somewhere west of the Gardener.
Tesa was somewhere east of the Heiress.
Tesa was in the same row as the flower bush. if true, leaves 61 of 68
Lorenzo was somewhere east of Gilda.
Exactly 2 people were in the rose garden.
Exactly 2 people were in the duck pond.
Exactly 3 people were in the lawn.

Show the squares Katia had left

The squares still open to Katia once their own statements are taken into account — 2 of 68.

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 Ruben were the one lying, no arrangement satisfies the rest. Not them.
If Zeno were the one lying, no arrangement satisfies the rest. Not them.
If Selma were the one lying, no arrangement satisfies the rest. Not them.
If Wanda were the one lying, no arrangement satisfies the rest. Not them.

Another 4 candidates collapse the same way.

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

Read backwards, Tesa actually told you:

Tesa was NOT east of the Heiress.
Tesa was NOT in the same row as the flower bush.

The squares that had to be tested

The rest does not fall out on its own. It takes 120 eliminations of the same move: put someone on a square, follow the consequences, and watch the board contradict itself.

Had Ruben stood in Duck pond (row 3, column 4), Katia would have had nowhere left to stand. So not there.
Had Zeno stood in Playground (row 1, column 1), Gilda would have had nowhere left to stand. So not there.
Put Selma in Playground (row 4, column 1) and the testimony cannot be satisfied at all. So not there.
Put Wanda in Bandstand (row 6, column 6) and the testimony cannot be satisfied at all. So not there.

Show what goes wrong

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

Another 116 squares fell the same way.

Ruben can only be in Lawn (row 6, column 9) — down from 16 possible squares.
Zeno can only be in Rose garden (row 4, column 6) — down from 30 possible squares.
Selma can only be in Picnic area (row 8, column 1) — down from 7 possible squares.
Wanda can only be in Lawn (row 9, column 7) — down from 5 possible squares.
Katia can only be in Duck pond (row 3, column 5) — down from 2 possible squares.
Gilda can only be in Playground (row 1, column 3) — down from 3 possible squares.
Ulises can only be in Lawn (row 7, column 8) — down from 3 possible squares.

The answer

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

Show the solved board

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

Expert · time attack — A Walk in the Park

A 10×9 grid across 8 rooms: Lawn, Picnic area, Kiosk, Bandstand, Duck pond, Path, Boathouse, Rose garden. Fourteen 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 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.

The testimony

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

Lorenzo was somewhere south of Bruno.
Lorenzo was in the same column as a shrub. leaves 15 of 76 squares
Show it on the board
The squares this one statement leaves Lorenzo: 15 of 76.
Lorenzo was all alone in a room.
Ines was somewhere west of the Magician.
Alistair was exactly 2 rows south of the Journalist.
Ursula was in the same column as the crate. leaves 8 of 76 squares
Show it on the board
The squares this one statement leaves Ursula: 8 of 76.
Selma was exactly 3 columns east of Victor.
Selma was in the same column as a flower bush. leaves 13 of 76 squares
Show it on the board
The squares this one statement leaves Selma: 13 of 76.
Frida was in the same column as a window. leaves 17 of 76 squares
Show it on the board
The squares this one statement leaves Frida: 17 of 76.
Frida was in the same row as a shrub. leaves 4 of 76 squares
Show it on the board
The squares this one statement leaves Frida: 4 of 76.
Bruno was in the same column as the floor lamp. leaves 8 of 76 squares
Show it on the board
The squares this one statement leaves Bruno: 8 of 76.
Victor was exactly 4 rows south of the Heiress.
Exactly 2 people were in the lawn.
Exactly 3 people were in the duck pond.

Show the squares Frida had left

The squares still open to Frida once their own statements are taken into account — 4 of 76.

The squares that had to be tested

The rest does not fall out on its own. It takes 186 eliminations across 2 rounds of the same move: put someone on a square, follow the consequences, and watch the board contradict itself.

Had Lorenzo stood in Kiosk (row 7, column 3), Ursula would have had nowhere left to stand. So not there.
Had Ines stood in Boathouse (row 1, column 2), Ursula would have had nowhere left to stand. So not there.
Had Hugo stood in Boathouse (row 1, column 2), Ursula would have had nowhere left to stand. So not there.
Had Alistair stood in Duck pond (row 3, column 1), Ursula would have had nowhere left to stand. So not there.

Show what goes wrong

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

Another 182 squares fell the same way.

Ursula can only be in Duck pond (row 3, column 2) — down from 3 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.

Bruno's motive would have been inheritance.
Lorenzo's motive would have been blackmail.
Ursula's motive would have been debts.
Frida's motive would have been ambition.
Ines's motive would have been revenge.
Selma was not driven by jealousy.
Selma was not driven by buried secrets.

The answer

That leaves one arrangement, and one person who could have done it: Selma, in Lawn (row 6, column 10).

The only motive left standing for Selma is obsession.

Show the solved board

The only arrangement the testimony allows. Selma 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

Five Empty Chairs — 3 detectives named the same liar at A Walk in the Park, exactly the 3 a charge takes. It sticks.

Ten cases unfolded on 7 September 2026, each set against the backdrop of A Walk in the Park. On the untimed boards, chentian proved swift through the earlier inquiries, solving the beginner grid in 0m 08s, the easy case in 0m 36s, and the medium case in 0m 32s. The heavier investigations belonged to a guest detective, who cleared the hard board in 4m 17s and untangled the expert case—which harbored a liar among its seven rooms—in 4m 30s.

The time attack docket offered fresh challenges across the grounds, seeing modest turnouts but steady resolutions. Chentian claimed the beginner run in 0m 28s and easy in 0m 16s, while detective2201 solved the medium board in 1m 17s. The final stretch demanded not just identifying the culprit but proving motive as well. Chentian handled both twists, resolving the hard board in 6m 51s and concluding the eight-room expert case in 12m 51s.

Fastest detectives of the day

Beginner: chentian — 0m 08s · Easy: chentian — 0m 36s · Medium: chentian — 0m 32s · Hard: a guest detective — 4m 17s · Expert: a guest detective — 4m 30s · Beginner · time attack: chentian — 0m 28s · Easy · time attack: chentian — 0m 16s · Medium · time attack: detective2201 — 1m 17s · Hard · time attack: chentian — 6m 51s · Expert · time attack: chentian — 12m 51s