Murder mystery sudoku — the daily cases for 13 October 2026

Every detective in the world got these same crime scenes on 2026-10-13 — each difficulty published twice, once untimed and once as time attack. Each case is procedurally generated and then proved to have exactly one logical solution before it is published, including the cases where somebody is lying. You place every suspect back on the map using only their testimony: exactly one person per row, never two in a column. Whoever is left alone with the victim did it.

Beginner — The Royal Greenhouse

A 5×5 grid across 4 rooms: Fountain, Arbor, Apiary, Seed bank. Six statements, six squares nobody could stand on, and no assumption anywhere: elimination alone closes it.

Cracked by 13 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.

Ulises was in the seed bank. leaves 6 of 21 squares
Show it on the board
The squares this one statement leaves Ulises: 6 of 21.
Tristan was in column 2. leaves 5 of 21 squares
Show it on the board
The squares this one statement leaves Tristan: 5 of 21.
Tristan was in the arbor. leaves 1 of 21 squares
Show it on the board
The squares this one statement leaves Tristan: 1 of 21.
Nora was in the fountain court. leaves 4 of 21 squares
Show it on the board
The squares this one statement leaves Nora: 4 of 21.
Nora was in the leftmost column. leaves 1 of 21 squares
Show it on the board
The squares this one statement leaves Nora: 1 of 21.
Wilfred was in row 2. leaves 4 of 21 squares
Show it on the board
The squares this one statement leaves Wilfred: 4 of 21.

Show the squares Wilfred had left

The squares still open to Wilfred once their own statements are taken into account — 4 of 21.

What the testimony settles on its own

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

Ulises can only be in Seed bank (row 3, column 3) — down from 6 possible squares.
Marina can only be in Apiary (row 4, column 4) — down from 21 possible squares.
Wilfred can only be in Apiary (row 2, column 5) — down from 4 possible squares.

The answer

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

Show the solved board

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

Beginner · time attack — The Royal Greenhouse

A 5×5 grid across 3 rooms: Palm house, Seed bank, Shed. Six statements, eight squares nobody could stand on, and no assumption anywhere: elimination alone closes it.

Cracked by 3 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 — bonsai · CA — carpet (square stays free) · CH — chest · D — desk · G — grandfather clock · M — mirror (square stays free) · S — stove · W — window (square stays free)

The testimony

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

Cesar was in the palm house. leaves 7 of 20 squares
Show it on the board
The squares this one statement leaves Cesar: 7 of 20.
Rita was in the tool shed. leaves 5 of 20 squares
Show it on the board
The squares this one statement leaves Rita: 5 of 20.
Rita was in column 3. leaves 1 of 20 squares
Show it on the board
The squares this one statement leaves Rita: 1 of 20.
Elias was in row 3. leaves 4 of 20 squares
Show it on the board
The squares this one statement leaves Elias: 4 of 20.
Elias was in the seed bank. leaves 2 of 20 squares
Show it on the board
The squares this one statement leaves Elias: 2 of 20.
Quentin was in the seed bank. leaves 8 of 20 squares
Show it on the board
The squares this one statement leaves Quentin: 8 of 20.

Show the squares Elias had left

The squares still open to Elias 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:

Cesar can only be in Palm house (row 1, column 5) — down from 7 possible squares.
Selma can only be in Shed (row 4, column 1) — down from 20 possible squares.
Elias can only be in Seed bank (row 3, column 4) — down from 2 possible squares.
Quentin can only be in Seed bank (row 5, column 2) — down from 8 possible squares.

The answer

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

Show the solved board

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

Easy — The Royal Greenhouse

A 6×6 grid across 5 rooms: Shed, Arbor, Terrace, Palm house, Fountain. Eight statements, eight squares nobody could stand on, and no assumption anywhere: elimination alone closes it.

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.

The testimony

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

Sofia was in row 3. leaves 6 of 30 squares
Show it on the board
The squares this one statement leaves Sofia: 6 of 30.
Sofia was in the tool shed. leaves 2 of 30 squares
Show it on the board
The squares this one statement leaves Sofia: 2 of 30.
Ines was beside a window. leaves 3 of 30 squares
Show it on the board
The squares this one statement leaves Ines: 3 of 30.
Ines was in the tool shed. leaves 1 of 30 squares
Show it on the board
The squares this one statement leaves Ines: 1 of 30.
Hugo was in the terrace. leaves 6 of 30 squares
Show it on the board
The squares this one statement leaves Hugo: 6 of 30.
Dante was in the palm house. leaves 4 of 30 squares
Show it on the board
The squares this one statement leaves Dante: 4 of 30.
Dante was in column 4. leaves 1 of 30 squares
Ada was in the fountain court. leaves 8 of 30 squares

Show the squares Sofia had left

The squares still open to Sofia 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:

Sofia can only be in Shed (row 3, column 6) — down from 2 possible squares.
Hugo can only be in Terrace (row 1, column 1) — down from 6 possible squares.
Xavier can only be in Palm house (row 4, column 2) — down from 30 possible squares.
Ada can only be in Fountain (row 2, column 3) — down from 8 possible squares.

The answer

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

Show the solved board

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

Easy · time attack — The Royal Greenhouse

A 6×6 grid across 5 rooms: Palm house, Arbor, Fountain, Seed bank, Potting shed. Seven statements, eight 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. CA — carpet (square stays free) · CR — crate · D — desk · FL — floor lamp · FO — flower bush · S — sofa (square stays free) · W — window (square stays free)

The testimony

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

Nadia was in the fountain court. leaves 8 of 32 squares
Show it on the board
The squares this one statement leaves Nadia: 8 of 32.
Boris was beside the floor lamp. leaves 2 of 32 squares
Show it on the board
The squares this one statement leaves Boris: 2 of 32.
Boris was in column 4. leaves 1 of 32 squares
Show it on the board
The squares this one statement leaves Boris: 1 of 32.
Sol was in column 2. leaves 6 of 32 squares
Show it on the board
The squares this one statement leaves Sol: 6 of 32.
Sol was beside the carpet. leaves 1 of 32 squares
Show it on the board
The squares this one statement leaves Sol: 1 of 32.
Tobias was beside the flower bush. leaves 2 of 32 squares
Show it on the board
The squares this one statement leaves Tobias: 2 of 32.
Pablo was beside the crate. leaves 1 of 32 squares

Show the squares Tobias had left

The squares still open to Tobias once their own statements are taken into account — 2 of 32.

What the testimony settles on its own

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

Delia can only be in Potting shed (row 2, column 1) — down from 32 possible squares.
Nadia can only be in Fountain (row 4, column 3) — down from 8 possible squares.
Tobias can only be in Arbor (row 6, column 6) — down from 2 possible squares.

The answer

That leaves one arrangement, and one person who could have done it: Boris, in Potting shed (row 3, column 4).

Show the solved board

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

Medium · time attack — The Royal Greenhouse

A 7×7 grid across 5 rooms: Terrace, Seed bank, Apiary, Orchid room, Palm house. Nine statements, fourteen squares nobody could stand on, and no assumption anywhere: elimination alone closes it.

Cracked by 3 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 — bonsai · D — desk · FL — floor lamp · FO — flower bush · G — grandfather clock · M — mirror (square stays free) · SO — sofa (square stays free) · ST — statue · SV — stove · T — tree · W — window (square stays free)

The testimony

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

Bruno was in the same room as the Heiress.
Bruno was in the same column as the sofa. leaves 13 of 40 squares
Show it on the board
The squares this one statement leaves Bruno: 13 of 40.
Estela was in the terrace or in the palm house. leaves 22 of 40 squares
Estela was somewhere south of Bruno.
Delia was beside the floor lamp. leaves 4 of 40 squares
Show it on the board
The squares this one statement leaves Delia: 4 of 40.
Lidia was beside the desk. leaves 2 of 40 squares
Show it on the board
The squares this one statement leaves Lidia: 2 of 40.
Sol was beside the floor lamp. leaves 4 of 40 squares
Show it on the board
The squares this one statement leaves Sol: 4 of 40.
Sol was in the western half of the scene. leaves 1 of 40 squares
Show it on the board
The squares this one statement leaves Sol: 1 of 40.
Nadia was in the same column as a window. leaves 11 of 40 squares
Show it on the board
The squares this one statement leaves Nadia: 11 of 40.

Show the squares Lidia had left

The squares still open to Lidia once their own statements are taken into account — 2 of 40.

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 Seed bank (row 4, column 2) — down from 13 possible squares.
Estela can only be in Terrace (row 7, column 1) — down from 22 possible squares.
Felix can only be in Palm house (row 1, column 5) — down from 40 possible squares.
Delia can only be in Seed bank (row 6, column 4) — down from 4 possible squares.
Lidia can only be in Orchid room (row 3, column 6) — down from 2 possible squares.
Nadia can only be in Palm house (row 2, column 7) — down from 11 possible squares.

The answer

That leaves one arrangement, and one person who could have done it: Nadia, in Palm house (row 2, column 7).

Show the solved board

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

Medium — The Royal Greenhouse

A 7×7 grid across 6 rooms: Apiary, Fountain, Potting shed, Shed, Palm house, Seed bank. Ten statements, twelve squares nobody could stand on, almost as many rooms as suspects, so a room claim nearly names a square, 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. 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) · CH — chest · CR — crate · FL — floor lamp · FO — flower bush · G — grandfather clock · M — mirror (square stays free) · P — potted plant · SO — sofa (square stays free) · ST — statue · T — tree · W — window (square stays free)

The testimony

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

Petra was beside the tree. leaves 2 of 41 squares
Show it on the board
The squares this one statement leaves Petra: 2 of 41.
Wilfred was in the same column as the window. leaves 13 of 41 squares
Show it on the board
The squares this one statement leaves Wilfred: 13 of 41.
Wilfred was in the palm house or in the seed bank. leaves 5 of 41 squares
Show it on the board
The squares this one statement leaves Wilfred: 5 of 41.
Wilfred was somewhere north of Dorian.
Queralt was in the fountain court or in the seed bank. leaves 12 of 41 squares
Show it on the board
The squares this one statement leaves Queralt: 12 of 41.
Dorian was beside the armchair. leaves 4 of 41 squares
Show it on the board
The squares this one statement leaves Dorian: 4 of 41.
Dorian was somewhere north of Queralt.
Rita was beside the grandfather clock. leaves 3 of 41 squares
Show it on the board
The squares this one statement leaves Rita: 3 of 41.
Ursula was in the same row as the mirror. leaves 4 of 41 squares
Ursula was in the same column as the potted plant. leaves 1 of 41 squares

Show the squares Petra had left

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

What the testimony settles on its own

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

Petra can only be in Apiary (row 6, column 6) — down from 2 possible squares.
Wilfred can only be in Seed bank (row 1, column 4) — down from 5 possible squares.
Lorenzo can only be in Palm house (row 4, column 1) — down from 41 possible squares.
Queralt can only be in Fountain (row 3, column 5) — down from 12 possible squares.
Dorian can only be in Palm house (row 2, column 2) — down from 4 possible squares.
Rita can only be in Potting shed (row 5, column 7) — down from 3 possible squares.

The answer

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

Show the solved board

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

Hard — The Royal Greenhouse

An 8×8 grid across 6 rooms: Arbor, Fountain, Potting shed, Terrace, Orchid room, Apiary. Fourteen statements, fifteen squares nobody could stand on, and one round of assume-and-test after elimination ran dry — and one of the eight was lying throughout.

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

Cracked by 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) · CH — chest · CR — crate · D — desk · FL — floor lamp · FO — flower bush · G — grandfather clock · P — potted plant · SO — sofa (square stays free) · ST — statue · SV — stove · T — tree · W — window (square stays free)

The testimony

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

Felix was in the same column as the window. if true, leaves 8 of 52
Show it on the board
The squares this one statement leaves Felix: 8 of 52.
Felix was in the same row as the floor lamp. if true, leaves 1 of 52
Show it on the board
The squares this one statement leaves Felix: 1 of 52.
Zaida was in the same row as the stove. if true, leaves 6 of 52
Show it on the board
The squares this one statement leaves Zaida: 6 of 52.
Zaida was touching the outer wall. if true, leaves 2 of 52
Show it on the board
The squares this one statement leaves Zaida: 2 of 52.
Zaida was somewhere west of the Butler.
Paloma was somewhere north of the Gardener.
Paloma was in the same column as the floor lamp. if true, leaves 5 of 52
Show it on the board
The squares this one statement leaves Paloma: 5 of 52.
Milo was somewhere east of the Curator.
Milo was somewhere north of Felix.
Milo was somewhere north of the Butler.
Boris was in the same row as the desk. if true, leaves 7 of 52
Show it on the board
The squares this one statement leaves Boris: 7 of 52.
Boris was somewhere south of the Doctor.
Ruben was in the same room as Alma.
Alma was in the same column as the stove. if true, leaves 7 of 52

Show the squares Zaida had left

The squares still open to Zaida once their own statements are taken into account — 2 of 52.

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 Felix were the one lying, no arrangement satisfies the rest. Not them.
If Estela were the one lying, no arrangement satisfies the rest. Not them.
If Zaida were the one lying, no arrangement satisfies the rest. Not them.
If Paloma were the one lying, no arrangement satisfies the rest. Not them.

Another 3 candidates collapse the same way.

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

Read backwards, Milo actually told you:

Milo was NOT east of the Curator.
Milo was NOT north of Felix.
Milo was NOT north of the Butler.

What the testimony settles on its own

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

Zaida can only be in Apiary (row 4, column 1) — down from 2 possible squares.
Paloma can only be in Fountain (row 1, column 5) — down from 5 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 Estela stood in Apiary (row 2, column 2), Boris would have had nowhere left to stand. So not there.
Had Milo stood in Terrace (row 6, column 3), Alma would have had nowhere left to stand. So not there.
Put Boris in Apiary (row 2, column 2) and the testimony cannot be satisfied at all. So not there.
Put Ruben in Orchid room (row 2, column 4) and the testimony cannot be satisfied at all. So not there.

Show what goes wrong

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

Another 27 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.

Boris's motive would have been blackmail.
Milo's motive would have been inheritance.
Alma's motive would have been obsession.
Ruben's motive would have been buried secrets.
Whoever did it was not driven by debts.
Whoever did it was not driven by revenge.

The answer

That leaves one arrangement, and one person who could have done it: Paloma, in Fountain (row 1, column 5). Milo lied throughout and was never charged.

The only motive left standing for Paloma is ambition.

Show the solved board

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

Hard · time attack — The Royal Greenhouse

An 8×8 grid across 6 rooms: Apiary, Seed bank, Orchid room, Arbor, Shed, Terrace. Twelve statements, fifteen 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 — bonsai · CA — carpet (square stays free) · CH — chest · CR — crate · D — desk · FL — floor lamp · FO — flower bush · SO — sofa (square stays free) · ST — statue · SV — stove · T — tree · W — window (square stays free)

The testimony

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

Luna was exactly 3 rows south of Horacio.
Luna was in the same column as the flower bush. leaves 5 of 54 squares
Show it on the board
The squares this one statement leaves Luna: 5 of 54.
Abel was all alone in a room.
Jonas was all alone in a room.
Jonas was somewhere west of Horacio.
Jonas was in the same row as the flower bush. leaves 7 of 54 squares
Show it on the board
The squares this one statement leaves Jonas: 7 of 54.
Jonas was somewhere west of the Gardener.
Rita was exactly 3 columns east of Selma.
Horacio was in the same row as the bonsai. leaves 6 of 54 squares
Show it on the board
The squares this one statement leaves Horacio: 6 of 54.
Selma was in the same room as Xavier.
Xavier was somewhere south of the Heiress.
Xavier was in the same column as the armchair. leaves 8 of 54 squares
Show it on the board
The squares this one statement leaves Xavier: 8 of 54.

Show the squares Luna had left

The squares still open to Luna once their own statements are taken into account — 5 of 54.

What the testimony settles on its own

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

Luna can only be in Seed bank (row 7, column 8) — down from 5 possible squares.

The squares that had to be tested

The rest does not fall out on its own. It takes 77 eliminations of the same move: put someone on a square, follow the consequences, and watch the board contradict itself.

Had Abel stood in Shed (row 1, column 2), Horacio would have had nowhere left to stand. So not there.
Had Kurt stood in Shed (row 1, column 1), Abel would have had nowhere left to stand. So not there.
Put Jonas in Orchid room (row 6, column 2) and the testimony cannot be satisfied at all. So not there.
Had Rita stood in Arbor (row 1, column 7), Abel would have had nowhere left to stand. So not there.

Show what goes wrong

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

Another 73 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.

Rita's motive would have been obsession.
Jonas's motive would have been ambition.
Abel's motive would have been blackmail.
Selma's motive would have been jealousy.
Whoever did it was not driven by revenge.
Whoever did it was not driven by buried secrets.

The answer

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

The only motive left standing for Luna is debts.

Show the solved board

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

Expert — The Royal Greenhouse

A 9×9 grid across 7 rooms: Terrace, Apiary, Seed bank, Palm house, Orchid room, Fountain, Shed. Sixteen statements, twenty 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 5 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 — bonsai · 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) · P — potted plant · SO — sofa (square stays free) · ST — statue · SV — stove · T — tree · W — window (square stays free)

The testimony

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

Nestor was in the same row as a window. if true, leaves 20 of 67
Show it on the board
The squares this one statement leaves Nestor: 20 of 67.
Ines was somewhere east of the Heiress.
Kaspar was somewhere west of the Journalist.
Kaspar was beside the carpet. if true, leaves 4 of 67
Show it on the board
The squares this one statement leaves Kaspar: 4 of 67.
Gilda was somewhere south of Boris.
Gilda was in the same column as the potted plant. if true, leaves 8 of 67
Show it on the board
The squares this one statement leaves Gilda: 8 of 67.
Gilda was somewhere west of Nestor.
Petra was in the same row as the floor lamp. if true, leaves 6 of 67
Show it on the board
The squares this one statement leaves Petra: 6 of 67.
Petra was in the same room as Boris.
Boris was somewhere south of the Colonel.
Boris was in the same row as the potted plant. if true, leaves 61 of 67
Sol was in the same column as the stove. if true, leaves 7 of 67
Show it on the board
The squares this one statement leaves Sol: 7 of 67.
Zeno was in the same column as the grandfather clock. if true, leaves 7 of 67
Show it on the board
The squares this one statement leaves Zeno: 7 of 67.
Zeno was somewhere south of the Journalist.
Exactly 2 people were in the orchid room.
Exactly 2 people were in the apiary.

Show the squares Kaspar had left

The squares still open to Kaspar once their own statements are taken into account — 4 of 67.

Unmasking the liar

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

If Nestor were the one lying, no arrangement satisfies the rest. Not them.
If Ines were the one lying, no arrangement satisfies the rest. Not them.
If Kaspar were the one lying, no arrangement satisfies the rest. Not them.
If Gilda were the one lying, no arrangement satisfies the rest. Not them.

Another 4 candidates collapse the same way.

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

Read backwards, Boris actually told you:

Boris was NOT south of the Colonel.
Boris was NOT in the same row as the potted plant.

The squares that had to be tested

The rest does not fall out on its own. It takes 146 eliminations of the same move: put someone on a square, follow the consequences, and watch the board contradict itself.

Had Nestor stood in Shed (row 1, column 9), Sol would have had nowhere left to stand. So not there.
Put Ines in Orchid room (row 1, column 4) and the testimony cannot be satisfied at all. So not there.
Had Kaspar stood in Palm house (row 5, column 3), Zeno would have had nowhere left to stand. So not there.
Put Gilda in Shed (row 2, column 7) and the testimony cannot be satisfied at all. So not there.

Show what goes wrong

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

Another 142 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.

Zeno's motive would have been obsession.
Ines's motive would have been debts.
Boris's motive would have been jealousy.
Petra's motive would have been blackmail.
Sol's motive would have been revenge.
Whoever did it was not driven by ambition.
Whoever did it was not driven by buried secrets.

The answer

That leaves one arrangement, and one person who could have done it: Gilda, in Apiary (row 5, column 7). Boris lied throughout and was never charged.

The only motive left standing for Gilda is inheritance.

Show the solved board

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

Expert · time attack — The Royal Greenhouse

A 9×9 grid across 8 rooms: Seed bank, Apiary, Palm house, Potting shed, Shed, Arbor, Terrace, Orchid room. Seventeen statements, eighteen 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 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) · B — bonsai · CH — chest · CL — clock · CR — crate · D — desk · F — flower bush · P — potted plant · SO — sofa (square stays free) · ST — statue · SV — stove · T — tree · W — window (square stays free)

The testimony

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

Rosa was somewhere west of the Professor.
Rosa was in the same column as the desk. if true, leaves 7 of 67
Show it on the board
The squares this one statement leaves Rosa: 7 of 67.
Gordon was somewhere south of Ada.
Vivienne was in the same column as the sofa. if true, leaves 15 of 67
Show it on the board
The squares this one statement leaves Vivienne: 15 of 67.
Vivienne was in the same row as the armchair. if true, leaves 2 of 67
Show it on the board
The squares this one statement leaves Vivienne: 2 of 67.
Vivienne was somewhere north of the Diva.
Olivia was somewhere north of the Heiress.
Jonas was in row 2. if true, leaves 8 of 67
Show it on the board
The squares this one statement leaves Jonas: 8 of 67.
Jonas was in the same column as a window. if true, leaves 2 of 67
Show it on the board
The squares this one statement leaves Jonas: 2 of 67.
Selma was in the same row as a window. if true, leaves 51 of 67
Selma was somewhere west of the Colonel.
Ada was in the same column as the potted plant. if true, leaves 8 of 67
Show it on the board
The squares this one statement leaves Ada: 8 of 67.
Ada was somewhere west of the Professor.
Ada was in the same row as the chest. if true, leaves 1 of 67
Paloma was in the same column as the crate. if true, leaves 8 of 67
Exactly 2 people were in the terrace.
Exactly 3 people were in the tool shed.

Show the squares Vivienne had left

The squares still open to Vivienne once their own statements are taken into account — 2 of 67.

Unmasking the liar

If Rosa were the one lying, no arrangement satisfies the rest. Not them.
If Gordon were the one lying, no arrangement satisfies the rest. Not them.
If Vivienne were the one lying, no arrangement satisfies the rest. Not them.
If Olivia were the one lying, no arrangement satisfies the rest. Not them.

Another 4 candidates collapse the same way.

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

Read backwards, Selma actually told you:

Selma was NOT in the same row as a window.
Selma was NOT west of the Colonel.

What the testimony settles on its own

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

Rosa can only be in Terrace (row 1, column 8) — down from 7 possible squares.
Gordon can only be in Shed (row 6, column 6) — down from 67 possible squares.
Vivienne can only be in Orchid room (row 7, column 5) — down from 2 possible squares.
Olivia can only be in Arbor (row 8, column 3) — down from 67 possible squares.
Jonas can only be in Seed bank (row 2, column 2) — down from 2 possible squares.
Selma can only be in Shed (row 4, column 9) — down from 51 possible squares.
Paloma can only be in Palm house (row 9, column 1) — down from 8 possible squares.
Cesar can only be in Terrace (row 3, column 4) — down from 67 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.

Jonas's motive would have been revenge.
Ada's motive would have been obsession.
Paloma's motive would have been blackmail.
Olivia's motive would have been ambition.
Selma's motive would have been inheritance.
Whoever did it was not driven by buried secrets.
Whoever did it was not driven by debts.

The answer

That leaves one arrangement, and one person who could have done it: Rosa, in Terrace (row 1, column 8). Selma lied throughout and was never charged.

The only motive left standing for Rosa is jealousy.

Show the solved board

The only arrangement the testimony allows. Rosa 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 — 5 of them saw through the testimony at The Royal Greenhouse. 3 was the bar; 5 leaves nothing to argue about.

The Royal Greenhouse played host to all ten inquiries today, its humid corridors concealing quiet deceits across both standard casework and time attack trials. The untimed boards offered gentle beginnings, from a five-by-five layout of four rooms to a seven-by-seven space spanning six. A guest detective secured the quickest mark on the beginner mystery in nine seconds, while chentian took easy in thirteen seconds and medium in eighteen. Deeper in the conservatory, standard hard required uncovering a motive amidst a liar's testimony across six rooms, where Nicole finished fastest in three minutes and ten seconds. The nine-by-nine standard expert case brought seven rooms and similar duplicity, wrapped up by chentian in six minutes and eleven seconds.

Against the clock, investigators faced sparser fields and tighter quarters. Chentian claimed the quickest time across every timed bracket, clocking twenty-two seconds on the three-room beginner run, nine seconds through five rooms on easy, and twenty-one seconds on medium's seven-by-seven floor. Complexity mounted sharply on the eight-by-eight hard board, demanding an established motive across six rooms, which chentian resolved in five minutes and fifty-three seconds. The timed expert trial proved the day's densest affair, demanding both motive and deceit exposed across eight rooms, solved by chentian in three minutes and forty-eight seconds.

Fastest detectives of the day

Beginner: a guest detective — 0m 09s · Easy: chentian — 0m 13s · Medium: chentian — 0m 18s · Hard: Nicole — 3m 10s · Expert: chentian — 6m 11s · Beginner · time attack: chentian — 0m 22s · Easy · time attack: chentian — 0m 09s · Medium · time attack: chentian — 0m 21s · Hard · time attack: chentian — 5m 53s · Expert · time attack: chentian — 3m 48s

The solutions

The solved boards — spoilers for every case of 13 October 2026

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

Beginner — The Royal Greenhouse

The cell door shut on Wilfred (magician), on the evidence of 12 detectives.

Easy — The Royal Greenhouse

10 detectives put Dante (colonel) away before the day was out.

Medium — The Royal Greenhouse

Dorian (curator) is in custody — the case was closed by 10 detectives.

Hard — The Royal Greenhouse

Paloma (doctor) ended the day behind bars — convicted by 5 detectives. The motive — ambition — was proved along with the name. Milo lied for them and was never charged.

Expert — The Royal Greenhouse

Gilda (diva) was named and charged; 4 detectives closed this one. The motive — inheritance — was proved along with the name. Boris lied for them and was never charged.

Beginner · time attack — The Royal Greenhouse

The cell door shut on Rita (diva), on the evidence of 3 detectives.

Easy · time attack — The Royal Greenhouse

2 detectives put Boris (gardener) away before the day was out.

Medium · time attack — The Royal Greenhouse

Nadia (chef) is in custody — the case was closed by 3 detectives.

Hard · time attack — The Royal Greenhouse

Luna (journalist) ended the day behind bars — convicted by one detective. The motive — debts — was proved along with the name.

Expert · time attack — The Royal Greenhouse

Rosa (journalist) was named and charged; one detective closed this one. The motive — jealousy — was proved along with the name. Selma lied for them and was never charged.

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

Every day's cases — the calendar · ← the cases for 12 October

Play free — no download