Murder mystery sudoku — the daily cases for 17 October 2026

Every detective in the world got these same crime scenes on 2026-10-17 — 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 Backyard Garden

A 5×5 grid across 4 rooms: Kitchen, Shed, Garden, Sunroom. Seven statements, five squares nobody could stand on, and enough testimony that the surplus is what pins the last two down.

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.

Gilda was in the garden. leaves 8 of 22 squares
Show it on the board
The squares this one statement leaves Gilda: 8 of 22.
Gilda was in row 3. leaves 3 of 22 squares
Show it on the board
The squares this one statement leaves Gilda: 3 of 22.
Hugo was in column 4. leaves 4 of 22 squares
Show it on the board
The squares this one statement leaves Hugo: 4 of 22.
Hugo was in row 2. leaves 1 of 22 squares
Show it on the board
The squares this one statement leaves Hugo: 1 of 22.
Pablo was in the sunroom. leaves 4 of 22 squares
Show it on the board
The squares this one statement leaves Pablo: 4 of 22.
Milo was in the tool shed. leaves 8 of 22 squares
Show it on the board
The squares this one statement leaves Milo: 8 of 22.
Milo was in column 2. leaves 1 of 22 squares

Show the squares Gilda had left

The squares still open to Gilda once their own statements are taken into account — 3 of 22.

What the testimony settles on its own

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

Gilda can only be in Garden (row 3, column 3) — down from 3 possible squares.
Simon can only be in Garden (row 4, column 5) — down from 22 possible squares.
Pablo can only be in Sunroom (row 5, column 1) — down from 4 possible squares.

The answer

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

Show the solved board

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

Beginner · time attack — The Backyard Garden

A 5×5 grid across 4 rooms: Bedroom, Pond, Garden, Sunroom. Five statements, seven squares nobody could stand on, and no assumption anywhere: elimination alone closes it.

Cracked by one detective so far.

How this case was cracked — the full solution to this board, step by step

Every step below is the solver’s own — the same one that proved this board has exactly one answer. The counts are real: you can check them against the grid.

Lettered squares are objects. Most take the square out of play — which is why the counts above are of free squares, not of all of them — but the ones marked below do not: their square is still in play. BM — boombox · BO — bookshelf · C — carpet (square stays free) · F — flower bush · P — painting (square stays free) · T — tree · W — window (square stays free)

The testimony

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

Quentin was beside the tree. leaves 2 of 21 squares
Show it on the board
The squares this one statement leaves Quentin: 2 of 21.
Greta was in the top row. leaves 5 of 21 squares
Show it on the board
The squares this one statement leaves Greta: 5 of 21.
Lorenzo was in the pond. leaves 4 of 21 squares
Show it on the board
The squares this one statement leaves Lorenzo: 4 of 21.
Zaida was in row 4. leaves 5 of 21 squares
Show it on the board
The squares this one statement leaves Zaida: 5 of 21.
Zaida was in column 4. leaves 1 of 21 squares
Show it on the board
The squares this one statement leaves Zaida: 1 of 21.

Show the squares Quentin had left

The squares still open to Quentin once their own statements are taken into account — 2 of 21.

What the testimony settles on its own

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

Quentin can only be in Garden (row 3, column 3) — down from 2 possible squares.
Greta can only be in Bedroom (row 1, column 2) — down from 5 possible squares.
Lorenzo can only be in Pond (row 5, column 5) — down from 4 possible squares.
Kaspar can only be in Bedroom (row 2, column 1) — down from 21 possible squares.

The answer

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

Show the solved board

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

Easy — The Backyard Garden

A 6×6 grid across 5 rooms: Garden, Sunroom, Backyard, Patio, Living room. Seven statements, nine squares nobody could stand on, and no assumption anywhere: elimination alone closes it.

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 — bed (square stays free) · BO — boombox · D — desk · F — flower bush · S — sofa (square stays free) · T — tree · W — window (square stays free)

The testimony

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

Selma was in row 3. leaves 5 of 31 squares
Show it on the board
The squares this one statement leaves Selma: 5 of 31.
Nestor was beside the desk. leaves 1 of 31 squares
Show it on the board
The squares this one statement leaves Nestor: 1 of 31.
Vera was in column 2. leaves 5 of 31 squares
Show it on the board
The squares this one statement leaves Vera: 5 of 31.
Vera was in row 2. leaves 1 of 31 squares
Show it on the board
The squares this one statement leaves Vera: 1 of 31.
Quentin was in the living room. leaves 6 of 31 squares
Show it on the board
The squares this one statement leaves Quentin: 6 of 31.
Percy was in the leftmost column. leaves 6 of 31 squares
Show it on the board
The squares this one statement leaves Percy: 6 of 31.
Percy was in the garden or in the patio. leaves 3 of 31 squares

Show the squares Percy had left

The squares still open to Percy once their own statements are taken into account — 3 of 31.

What the testimony settles on its own

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

Selma can only be in Garden (row 3, column 4) — down from 5 possible squares.
Marco can only be in Backyard (row 5, column 3) — down from 31 possible squares.
Quentin can only be in Living room (row 4, column 6) — down from 6 possible squares.
Percy can only be in Patio (row 1, column 1) — down from 3 possible squares.

The answer

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

Show the solved board

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

Easy · time attack — The Backyard Garden

A 6×6 grid across 5 rooms: Patio, Kitchen, Living room, Garden, Bedroom. Seven statements, ten squares nobody could stand on, and no assumption anywhere: elimination alone closes it.

Cracked by one detective so far.

How this case was cracked — the full solution to this board, step by step

Every step below is the solver’s own — the same one that proved this board has exactly one answer. The counts are real: you can check them against the grid.

Lettered squares are objects. Most take the square out of play — which is why the counts above are of free squares, not of all of them — but the ones marked below do not: their square is still in play. BM — boombox · BO — bookshelf · C — chest · FL — floor lamp · FO — flower bush · S — sofa (square stays free) · T — tree · W — window (square stays free)

The testimony

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

Tamara was in the garden. leaves 5 of 29 squares
Show it on the board
The squares this one statement leaves Tamara: 5 of 29.
Tamara was beside a window. leaves 1 of 29 squares
Show it on the board
The squares this one statement leaves Tamara: 1 of 29.
Selma was in the patio. leaves 5 of 29 squares
Show it on the board
The squares this one statement leaves Selma: 5 of 29.
Hugo was beside the boombox. leaves 3 of 29 squares
Show it on the board
The squares this one statement leaves Hugo: 3 of 29.
Vasco was in the living room. leaves 6 of 29 squares
Show it on the board
The squares this one statement leaves Vasco: 6 of 29.
Paloma was in row 3. leaves 4 of 29 squares
Show it on the board
The squares this one statement leaves Paloma: 4 of 29.
Paloma was in the patio. leaves 1 of 29 squares

Show the squares Hugo had left

The squares still open to Hugo 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:

Selma can only be in Patio (row 1, column 3) — down from 5 possible squares.
Hugo can only be in Bedroom (row 4, column 5) — down from 3 possible squares.
Vasco can only be in Living room (row 5, column 4) — down from 6 possible squares.
Katia can only be in Bedroom (row 2, column 6) — down from 29 possible squares.

The answer

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

Show the solved board

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

Medium · time attack — The Backyard Garden

An 8×7 grid across 6 rooms: Garden, Patio, Backyard, Bedroom, Kitchen, Sunroom. Ten 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.

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) · BE — bed (square stays free) · BM — boombox · BO — bookshelf · C — chest · D — desk · FL — floor lamp · FO — flower bush · P — painting (square stays free) · S — sofa (square stays free) · T — tree · W — window (square stays free)

The testimony

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

Frida was in the backyard or in the kitchen. leaves 10 of 48 squares
Show it on the board
The squares this one statement leaves Frida: 10 of 48.
Frida was in the same row as a painting. leaves 3 of 48 squares
Show it on the board
The squares this one statement leaves Frida: 3 of 48.
Selma was in the same column as the armchair. leaves 6 of 48 squares
Show it on the board
The squares this one statement leaves Selma: 6 of 48.
Rufus was in the same column as a painting. leaves 12 of 48 squares
Show it on the board
The squares this one statement leaves Rufus: 12 of 48.
Rufus was in the patio or in the backyard. leaves 1 of 48 squares
Show it on the board
The squares this one statement leaves Rufus: 1 of 48.
Olivia was lying on the bed. leaves 2 of 48 squares
Show it on the board
The squares this one statement leaves Olivia: 2 of 48.
Victor was in the same room as the Chef.
Delia was beside the flower bush. leaves 2 of 48 squares
Delia was in the same column as the floor lamp. leaves 1 of 48 squares
Nobody was in the bedroom.

Show the squares Olivia had left

The squares still open to Olivia 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:

Olivia can only be in Sunroom (row 4, column 8) — down from 2 possible squares.

The squares that had to be tested

The rest does not fall out on its own. It takes 18 eliminations of the same move: put someone on a square, follow the consequences, and watch the board contradict itself.

Had Frida stood in Backyard (row 1, column 4), Selma would have had nowhere left to stand. So not there.
Put Selma in Sunroom (row 1, column 5) and the testimony cannot be satisfied at all. So not there.
Put Celeste in Backyard (row 1, column 3) and the testimony cannot be satisfied at all. So not there.
Put Victor in Garden (row 6, column 5) and the testimony cannot be satisfied at all. So not there.

Show what goes wrong

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

Another 14 squares fell the same way.

The answer

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

Show the solved board

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

Medium — The Backyard Garden

A 7×7 grid across 6 rooms: Pond, Bedroom, Kitchen, Garden, Shed, Backyard. Eleven 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 — and one of the seven was lying throughout.

The twist: one suspect is an accomplice — every statement they make is false.

Cracked by 8 detectives so far.

How this case was cracked — the full solution to this board, step by step

Every step below is the solver’s own — the same one that proved this board has exactly one answer. The counts are real: you can check them against the grid.

Lettered squares are objects. Most take the square out of play — which is why the counts above are of free squares, not of all of them — but the ones marked below do not: their square is still in play. A — armchair (square stays free) · BM — boombox · BO — bookshelf · C — chest · D — desk · FL — floor lamp · FO — flower bush · P — painting (square stays free) · SO — sofa (square stays free) · ST — stove · 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.

Lidia was beside the stove. if true, leaves 1 of 40
Show it on the board
The squares this one statement leaves Lidia: 1 of 40.
Kira was in the tool shed or in the backyard. if true, leaves 16 of 40
Show it on the board
The squares this one statement leaves Kira: 16 of 40.
Kira was in the top row. if true, leaves 3 of 40
Show it on the board
The squares this one statement leaves Kira: 3 of 40.
Ada was somewhere south of Yolanda.
Ada was beside the floor lamp. if true, leaves 3 of 40
Show it on the board
The squares this one statement leaves Ada: 3 of 40.
Ada was in the same row as the sofa. if true, leaves 1 of 40
Show it on the board
The squares this one statement leaves Ada: 1 of 40.
Yolanda was in the bedroom or in the garden. if true, leaves 26 of 40
Yolanda was seated on the armchair.
Cesar was beside the tree. if true, leaves 3 of 40
Show it on the board
The squares this one statement leaves Cesar: 3 of 40.
Percy was in the eastern half of the scene. if true, leaves 17 of 40
Nobody was in the bedroom.

Show the squares Kira had left

The squares still open to Kira once their own statements are taken into account — 3 of 40.

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 Lidia were the one lying, no arrangement satisfies the rest. Not them.
If Horacio were the one lying, no arrangement satisfies the rest. Not them.
If Kira were the one lying, no arrangement satisfies the rest. Not them.
If Ada were the one lying, no arrangement satisfies the rest. Not them.

Another 2 candidates collapse the same way.

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

Read backwards, Yolanda actually told you:

Yolanda was in neither the bedroom nor the garden.
Yolanda was NOT seated on the armchair.

What the testimony settles on its own

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

Horacio can only be in Garden (row 2, column 1) — down from 40 possible squares.
Kira can only be in Backyard (row 1, column 7) — down from 3 possible squares.
Yolanda can only be in Pond (row 4, column 4) — down from 26 possible squares.
Cesar can only be in Garden (row 3, column 3) — down from 3 possible squares.
Percy can only be in Shed (row 7, column 5) — down from 17 possible squares.

The answer

That leaves one arrangement, and one person who could have done it: Cesar, in Garden (row 3, column 3). Yolanda lied throughout and was never charged.

Show the solved board

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

Hard — The Backyard Garden

An 8×8 grid across 7 rooms: Sunroom, Kitchen, Pond, Backyard, Garden, Living room, Shed. Nine statements, thirteen 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 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) · BE — bed (square stays free) · BM — boombox · BO — bookshelf · C — chest · D — desk · FL — floor lamp · FO — flower bush · SO — sofa (square stays free) · ST — stove · T — tree · W — window (square stays free)

The testimony

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

Clara was beside the bed. leaves 4 of 55 squares
Show it on the board
The squares this one statement leaves Clara: 4 of 55.
Clara was somewhere east of Flora.
Rita was in the same column as the floor lamp. leaves 6 of 55 squares
Show it on the board
The squares this one statement leaves Rita: 6 of 55.
Rita was exactly 5 rows north of Nico.
Ulises was somewhere east of the Butler.
Nico was exactly 6 columns west of Luna.
Flora was exactly 3 columns east of Ulises.
Luna was exactly 1 row south of the Magician.
Julian was in the same row as the boombox. leaves 5 of 55 squares
Show it on the board
The squares this one statement leaves Julian: 5 of 55.

Show the squares Clara had left

The squares still open to Clara once their own statements are taken into account — 4 of 55.

The squares that had to be tested

The rest does not fall out on its own. It takes 106 eliminations of the same move: put someone on a square, follow the consequences, and watch the board contradict itself.

Had Clara stood in Kitchen (row 1, column 8), Nico would have had nowhere left to stand. So not there.
Put Rita in Sunroom (row 1, column 5) and the testimony cannot be satisfied at all. So not there.
Put Ulises in Sunroom (row 1, column 2) and the testimony cannot be satisfied at all. So not there.
Put Nico in Living room (row 6, column 1) and the testimony cannot be satisfied at all. So not there.

Show what goes wrong

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

Another 102 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 ambition.
Clara's motive would have been debts.
Julian's motive would have been inheritance.
Luna's motive would have been buried secrets.
Whoever did it was not driven by revenge.
Whoever did it was not driven by blackmail.

The answer

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

The only motive left standing for Ulises is jealousy.

Show the solved board

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

Hard · time attack — The Backyard Garden

A 9×8 grid across 6 rooms: Patio, Shed, Living room, Backyard, Kitchen, Pond. Ten 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. A — armchair (square stays free) · BE — bed (square stays free) · BM — boombox · BO — bookshelf · CA — carpet (square stays free) · CH — chest · D — desk · FL — floor lamp · FO — flower bush · S — stove · T — tree · W — window (square stays free)

The testimony

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

Bianca was in the same column as the boombox. leaves 7 of 61 squares
Show it on the board
The squares this one statement leaves Bianca: 7 of 61.
Alma was exactly 1 row south of the Professor.
Horacio was somewhere west of Julia.
Conrad was in the same row as the stove. leaves 6 of 61 squares
Show it on the board
The squares this one statement leaves Conrad: 6 of 61.
Conrad was in the same column as the chest. leaves 1 of 61 squares
Show it on the board
The squares this one statement leaves Conrad: 1 of 61.
Delia was beside the stove. leaves 1 of 61 squares
Show it on the board
The squares this one statement leaves Delia: 1 of 61.
Nora was in column 5. leaves 6 of 61 squares
Show it on the board
The squares this one statement leaves Nora: 6 of 61.
Nora was exactly 2 rows north of Horacio.
Julia was beside the chest. leaves 3 of 61 squares
Show it on the board
The squares this one statement leaves Julia: 3 of 61.
Julia was exactly 4 columns west of Alma.

Show the squares Julia had left

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

Nora can only be in Shed (row 1, column 5) — down from 6 possible squares.
Julia can only be in Shed (row 2, column 3) — down from 3 possible squares.

The squares that had to be tested

The rest does not fall out on its own. It takes 19 eliminations of the same move: put someone on a square, follow the consequences, and watch the board contradict itself.

Had Bianca stood in Pond (row 3, column 2), Horacio would have had nowhere left to stand. So not there.
Had Alma stood in Backyard (row 4, column 7), Bianca would have had nowhere left to stand. So not there.
Put Horacio in Pond (row 3, column 2) and the testimony cannot be satisfied at all. So not there.
Put Lorenzo in Pond (row 3, column 1) and the testimony cannot be satisfied at all. So not there.

Show what goes wrong

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

Another 15 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.

Bianca's motive would have been blackmail.
Conrad's motive would have been revenge.
Alma's motive would have been ambition.
Julia's motive would have been buried secrets.
Whoever did it was not driven by jealousy.
Whoever did it was not driven by inheritance.

The answer

That leaves one arrangement, and one person who could have done it: Delia, in Living room (row 5, column 9).

The only motive left standing for Delia is debts.

Show the solved board

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

Expert — The Backyard Garden

A 9×9 grid across 8 rooms: Kitchen, Patio, Backyard, Pond, Bedroom, Shed, Living room, Garden. Eighteen 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 — and one of the nine was lying throughout.

The twist: one suspect is an accomplice — every statement they make is false.

Cracked by one detective so far.

How this case was cracked — the full solution to this board, step by step

Every step below is the solver’s own — the same one that proved this board has exactly one answer. The counts are real: you can check them against the grid.

Lettered squares are objects. Most take the square out of play — which is why the counts above are of free squares, not of all of them — but the ones marked below do not: their square is still in play. A — armchair (square stays free) · BE — bed (square stays free) · BM — boombox · BO — bookshelf · CA — carpet (square stays free) · CH — chest · D — desk · FL — floor lamp · FO — flower bush · P — painting (square stays free) · S — 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.

Victor was in the same column as the floor lamp. if true, leaves 62 of 70
Victor and the Gardener were in different rooms.
Jimena was somewhere west of the Chef.
Jimena was somewhere east of the Gardener.
Ofelia was in row 4. if true, leaves 9 of 70
Show it on the board
The squares this one statement leaves Ofelia: 9 of 70.
Ofelia was in the same column as the chest. if true, leaves 1 of 70
Show it on the board
The squares this one statement leaves Ofelia: 1 of 70.
Ofelia was somewhere north of the Gardener.
Ofelia was somewhere east of the Heiress.
Frida was in the same row as the bed. if true, leaves 8 of 70
Show it on the board
The squares this one statement leaves Frida: 8 of 70.
Frida was somewhere east of the Butler.
Dorian was in the same row as the flower bush. if true, leaves 7 of 70
Show it on the board
The squares this one statement leaves Dorian: 7 of 70.
Dorian was in the same column as the armchair. if true, leaves 1 of 70
Show it on the board
The squares this one statement leaves Dorian: 1 of 70.
Dorian was somewhere north of the Heiress.
Gaspar was in the same row as the boombox. if true, leaves 7 of 70
Show it on the board
The squares this one statement leaves Gaspar: 7 of 70.
Paloma was somewhere south of Victor.
Sol was in the same row as the chest. if true, leaves 7 of 70
Exactly 2 people were in the tool shed.
Exactly 3 people were in the living room.

Show the squares Gaspar had left

The squares still open to Gaspar once their own statements are taken into account — 7 of 70.

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 Jimena were the one lying, no arrangement satisfies the rest. Not them.
If Ofelia 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 Frida were the one lying, no arrangement satisfies the rest. Not them.

Another 4 candidates collapse the same way.

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

Read backwards, Victor actually told you:

Victor was NOT in the same column as the floor lamp.
Victor and the Gardener were in the SAME room.

The squares that had to be tested

The rest does not fall out on its own. It takes 91 eliminations of the same move: put someone on a square, follow the consequences, and watch the board contradict itself.

Had Victor stood in Backyard (row 1, column 8), Sol would have had nowhere left to stand. So not there.
Put Jimena in Shed (row 1, column 3) and the testimony cannot be satisfied at all. So not there.
Had Kaspar stood in Backyard (row 1, column 5), Victor would have had nowhere left to stand. So not there.
Had Frida stood in Bedroom (row 8, column 3), Victor would have had nowhere left to stand. So not there.

Show what goes wrong

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

Another 87 squares fell the same way.

The answer

That leaves one arrangement, and one person who could have done it: Sol, in Shed (row 3, column 3). Victor lied throughout and was never charged.

Show the solved board

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

Expert · time attack — The Backyard Garden

A 10×9 grid across 7 rooms: Sunroom, Bedroom, Living room, Backyard, Pond, Patio, Shed. Thirteen statements, nineteen squares nobody could stand on, 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. A — armchair (square stays free) · BE — bed (square stays free) · BM — boombox · BO — bookshelf · CA — carpet (square stays free) · CH — chest · D — desk · FL — floor lamp · FO — flower bush · P — painting (square stays free) · SO — sofa (square stays free) · ST — 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 somewhere east of Nadia.
Rufus was in the same row as the bed. leaves 15 of 77 squares
Show it on the board
The squares this one statement leaves Rufus: 15 of 77.
Rufus was exactly 3 rows south of Bruno.
Rufus was in the same column as the boombox. leaves 2 of 77 squares
Show it on the board
The squares this one statement leaves Rufus: 2 of 77.
Zaida was somewhere east of Ignacio.
Ignacio was all alone in a room.
Selma was exactly 6 columns west of Bruno.
Nadia was exactly 3 rows south of Ignacio.
Vasco was exactly 3 rows south of Selma.
Vasco was in the same column as the chest. leaves 6 of 77 squares
Show it on the board
The squares this one statement leaves Vasco: 6 of 77.
Helena was in the same column as the bed. leaves 9 of 77 squares
Show it on the board
The squares this one statement leaves Helena: 9 of 77.
Exactly 3 people were in the tool shed.
Exactly 2 people were in the bedroom.

Show the squares Rufus had left

The squares still open to Rufus once their own statements are taken into account — 2 of 77.

The squares that had to be tested

The rest does not fall out on its own. It takes 211 eliminations across 2 rounds of the same move: put someone on a square, follow the consequences, and watch the board contradict itself.

Had Jonas stood in Sunroom (row 1, column 2), Vasco would have had nowhere left to stand. So not there.
Had Bruno stood in Pond (row 3, column 9), Zaida would have had nowhere left to stand. So not there.
Had Zaida stood in Sunroom (row 1, column 2), Vasco would have had nowhere left to stand. So not there.
Had Ignacio stood in Sunroom (row 1, column 3), Nadia would have had nowhere left to stand. So not there.

Show what goes wrong

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

Another 207 squares fell the same way.

Bruno can only be in Shed (row 4, column 7) — down from 3 possible squares.
Rufus can only be in Living room (row 7, column 8) — down from 2 possible squares.
Selma can only be in Bedroom (row 6, column 1) — down from 2 possible squares.

The motive

This case demands the why as well as the who: naming the killer without proving the motive counts for nothing. 8 motives are in play, and these statements narrow them.

Bruno's motive would have been ambition.
Zaida's motive would have been obsession.
Nadia's motive would have been debts.
Vasco's motive would have been blackmail.
Helena's motive would have been inheritance.
Whoever did it was not driven by jealousy.
Whoever did it was not driven by buried secrets.

The answer

That leaves one arrangement, and one person who could have done it: Selma, in Bedroom (row 6, column 1).

The only motive left standing for Selma is revenge.

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

The Cartographer’s Debt — The accomplice at The Backyard Garden is charged: 7 independent detectives put the same name to the same lie.

On 17 October 2026, all ten investigations unfolded across The Backyard Garden. The standard docket began simply enough, though complications soon took root among the flowerbeds. A liar surfaced in the seven-by-seven medium case of six rooms, while the eight-by-eight hard board left deception aside and required motive across its seven rooms. The nine-by-nine expert challenge introduced both eight rooms and a second liar to unmask, yielding just a single solution from three attempts. Chentian claimed the day's fastest untimed marks throughout: 0m 13s on the beginner, 0m 16s on the easy, 1m 14s on the medium, 2m 32s on the hard, and 5m 12s on the expert.

The time attack boards, each visited by a solitary investigator, presented their own distinct dimensions. The eight-by-seven medium board demanded clean deduction across six rooms, while the nine-by-eight hard board and the sprawling ten-by-nine expert board with seven rooms both required establishing motive, though neither harbored a liar. Chentian swept every clock, recording 0m 14s on the beginner, 0m 15s on the easy, 0m 39s on the medium, 0m 54s on the hard, and concluding with 12m 05s on the expert.

Fastest detectives of the day

Beginner: chentian — 0m 13s · Easy: chentian — 0m 16s · Medium: chentian — 1m 14s · Hard: chentian — 2m 32s · Expert: chentian — 5m 12s · Beginner · time attack: chentian — 0m 14s · Easy · time attack: chentian — 0m 15s · Medium · time attack: chentian — 0m 39s · Hard · time attack: chentian — 0m 54s · Expert · time attack: chentian — 12m 05s

The solutions

The solved boards — spoilers for every case of 17 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 Backyard Garden

The cell door shut on Gilda (professor), on the evidence of 8 detectives.

Easy — The Backyard Garden

7 detectives put Vera (heiress) away before the day was out.

Medium — The Backyard Garden

Cesar (gardener) is in custody — the case was closed by 7 detectives. Yolanda lied for them and was never charged.

Hard — The Backyard Garden

Ulises (magician) ended the day behind bars — convicted by 4 detectives. The motive — jealousy — was proved along with the name.

Expert — The Backyard Garden

Sol (curator) was named and charged; one detective closed this one. Victor lied for them and was never charged.

Beginner · time attack — The Backyard Garden

The cell door shut on Greta (doctor), on the evidence of one detective.

Easy · time attack — The Backyard Garden

one detective put Hugo (colonel) away before the day was out.

Medium · time attack — The Backyard Garden

Olivia (professor) is in custody — the case was closed by one detective.

Hard · time attack — The Backyard Garden

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

Expert · time attack — The Backyard Garden

Selma (journalist) was named and charged; one detective closed this one. The motive — revenge — was proved along with the name.

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 16 October

Play free — no download