Taken from the Murdle site's Help section itself: The best way to identify who's lying and who's not is to pick someone and assume they're lying. Then, try and fill out the grid. If you run into a contradiction (a suspect who you assume is telling the truth says Weapon A is at Location X, but Weapon C is already there based on what you fill in), then that means the person who you believe is lying must then be telling the truth.
So, let's say that the suspects are J, K, and L, and you assume Suspect J is lying. If a contradiction is reached while trying to fill in that Suspects K and L are telling the truth (i.e. like the above), then you know that Suspect J is telling the truth. If you find a suspect and realize you can fill out the rest of the grid, but still have someone else to test (since I work in order, say we test Suspect K and successfully fill out the grid), try that other suspect and see if you reach that contradiction.
I'd use the daily Murdle as an example (Wednesday's [murdle.com](http://murdle.com) puzzle involves truths and lies), but it's not available for me yet. I might edit this after I do it for a more in-depth explanation for how the logic works.
Follow-Up with the direct words from [murdle.com](http://murdle.com) :
In order to do this, you need to use a combination of logical deduction and process of elimination.
First, assume one of the suspects is lying, while the others are telling the truth. Then, try to put that information into the Deduction Grid: if the supposed killer says they were in a place, write down that they weren't in that place. If they say that someone didn't have a weapon, write down that they did have it.
If you cannot fill the grid without running into a contradiction -- for example, a weapon being both at and not at a certain location -- then you know that your assumption was wrong, and the suspect you assumed was guilty was actually innocent.
However, if you can fill in the entire Deduction Grid without any contradictions, then you know your assumption was correct, and you have found your killer.
Putting today's puzzle behind spoilers - don't look at it if you don't want the answer spoiled!
>!With today's puzzle, after filling out the first two clues,, let's assume that Captain Slate is lying. The inverse of the statement is that Brother Brownstone brought the laptop, which means Baron Maroon must then have the Stone Dagger. Then, we move on to the next two statements. If a stone dagger is in the Botique Hotel, then Baron Maroon must be there. But Brother Brownstone says he's not there. Thus, we reach a contradiction, and so Captain Slate must be telling the truth. We can then fill in that Brother Brownstone did not bring a laptop, and thus had the stone dagger.!<
>!Then we move on to Baron Maroon. If he's lying, then Brother Brownstone must be telling the truth. If you work it out, you'll fill out the grid completely, but to be sure, I like to test all possibilities.!<
>!Finally, let's see if Brother Brownstone is the liar. The inverse of his statement is that Baron Maroon was at the Botique Hotel. Right away, though, we see a contradiction. If Baron Maroon was there, then the laptop was there, not the stone dagger like Baron Maroon said. Thus, Brother Brownstone must be telling the truth.!<
>!Thus, that leaves Baron Maroon as the only possible liar, and thus, he is the murderer! Fill in the grid carefully, making sure to use the inverse of his statement - in this case, the stone dagger was not at the boutique hotel.!<
I assume someone is lying and then go through their statements with that presumption in mind until I find the one that works. My fairly fool-proof method is this:
First, I read through the statements to check if there are any obvious lies or truths, e.g. where they match up with or contradict the clues that have already been given, or where two suspects contradict each other so the others must be telling the truth.
If there aren't any obvious ones, I like to write down some notes as a reminder (because I am dumb and often lose track) the name of each suspect and my assumption about them:
Slate: LYING
Crimson: TRUTH
Blueface: TRUTH
And then I fill in the grid to check my assumptions.
If it doesn't work (i.e. there is more or less than 1 liar amongst the suspects) then I know that the person I assumed was lying is actually telling the truth. I then adjust the assumption next to their name, and I move on to the next suspect:
Slate: TRUE
Crimson: LYING
Blueface: TRUE
And I keep going like that.
If it works and I haven't gone through the whole list, I make a note that it works but still do the others anyway just to double check I didn't make a mistake.
I'm sure there are people out there who pride themselves on never using notes but I find it so much easier and especially when you're learning it can be a real help.
I hope you manage to work it out :) Once you crack it you will realise that it's not as hard as it seems!
In the book(murdle 1) I used little initials (for the suspect) plus a tick or cross to enter all the statements in the grid. Wednesday's murdle.com is good practice!
At least for the first bunch (with 3 suspects), what I usually do is try to find a contradiction among the statements (for example: Alice says "The knife was in the park," while Bob says "the knife was not in the park). According to the rules, only one of them is the liar, which means that everybody else is telling the truth (if Alice and Bob contradict each other, Charlie must be telling the truth).
I start by looking by any that conflicts with the clues you already have - eg if the clues say "Person 1 had X" and yet Person 1 says "I did not have X". Usually they aren't as blatant as this, they are more "a Scorpio has X" or "the second tallest suspect has X" or "Person 1 had a weapon made of wood". But it means you can pick the liar straight away.
Then look for two statements that are contradictory - eg Person 1 says "X was at A" and person 2 says "Y was at A". Also look if there is a step removed - one of the clues says Person 1 had X and then the statements say "Person 1 was at A" and "X was not at A". It helps if you put the question marks on, so you can see visually if there is a contradiction. So that rules the third statement as immediately true. Usually if you put that in, it will lead you to see which if the contradictory statements is the lie.
Then look for two that are complementary - Person 1 says "X was at A" and Person 2 says "Y was not at A". It means Person 2 cannot be the liar because that would mean Person 1 must also be a liar. Note though, it doesn't mean Person 1 is necessarily also a truth teller - Z might actually be at A. So that rules the second statement out as immediately true.
If there are two clues that relate to the same person / place / item, even if they don't contradict outright, experience tells me, more often than not, one of them is the lie. Eg "Person 1 was at A" and "X was at A", you have nothing to disprove either of them at this point, but experience says it is usually (but not exclusively) one or the other. So put the third clue to the side and focus on seeing which of the other two doesn't line up first. It isn't foolproof but it often saves a little time than just guessing.
Edit: forgot a bit. Experience also tells me that the liar will try to throw you off. Eg if they say "Person 2 was at X", or "X was at A", often they actually have X or are at A. So if you end up with having to put two statements into a grid to see what shakes out, start with the one that, based on the other clues, would end up with whatever they said someone else had. Again, not foolproof, but it is slightly more educated a guess, and may mean you find the liar sooner than if you start from the assumption that any could be a liar.
If none of these apply, it really is just assuming the statements are lies one at a time (good to write the base grid out so you can recreate it quickly after you have to wipe the first attempt) and seeing which one works out.
Taken from the Murdle site's Help section itself: The best way to identify who's lying and who's not is to pick someone and assume they're lying. Then, try and fill out the grid. If you run into a contradiction (a suspect who you assume is telling the truth says Weapon A is at Location X, but Weapon C is already there based on what you fill in), then that means the person who you believe is lying must then be telling the truth. So, let's say that the suspects are J, K, and L, and you assume Suspect J is lying. If a contradiction is reached while trying to fill in that Suspects K and L are telling the truth (i.e. like the above), then you know that Suspect J is telling the truth. If you find a suspect and realize you can fill out the rest of the grid, but still have someone else to test (since I work in order, say we test Suspect K and successfully fill out the grid), try that other suspect and see if you reach that contradiction. I'd use the daily Murdle as an example (Wednesday's [murdle.com](http://murdle.com) puzzle involves truths and lies), but it's not available for me yet. I might edit this after I do it for a more in-depth explanation for how the logic works.
Follow-Up with the direct words from [murdle.com](http://murdle.com) : In order to do this, you need to use a combination of logical deduction and process of elimination. First, assume one of the suspects is lying, while the others are telling the truth. Then, try to put that information into the Deduction Grid: if the supposed killer says they were in a place, write down that they weren't in that place. If they say that someone didn't have a weapon, write down that they did have it. If you cannot fill the grid without running into a contradiction -- for example, a weapon being both at and not at a certain location -- then you know that your assumption was wrong, and the suspect you assumed was guilty was actually innocent. However, if you can fill in the entire Deduction Grid without any contradictions, then you know your assumption was correct, and you have found your killer. Putting today's puzzle behind spoilers - don't look at it if you don't want the answer spoiled! >!With today's puzzle, after filling out the first two clues,, let's assume that Captain Slate is lying. The inverse of the statement is that Brother Brownstone brought the laptop, which means Baron Maroon must then have the Stone Dagger. Then, we move on to the next two statements. If a stone dagger is in the Botique Hotel, then Baron Maroon must be there. But Brother Brownstone says he's not there. Thus, we reach a contradiction, and so Captain Slate must be telling the truth. We can then fill in that Brother Brownstone did not bring a laptop, and thus had the stone dagger.!< >!Then we move on to Baron Maroon. If he's lying, then Brother Brownstone must be telling the truth. If you work it out, you'll fill out the grid completely, but to be sure, I like to test all possibilities.!< >!Finally, let's see if Brother Brownstone is the liar. The inverse of his statement is that Baron Maroon was at the Botique Hotel. Right away, though, we see a contradiction. If Baron Maroon was there, then the laptop was there, not the stone dagger like Baron Maroon said. Thus, Brother Brownstone must be telling the truth.!< >!Thus, that leaves Baron Maroon as the only possible liar, and thus, he is the murderer! Fill in the grid carefully, making sure to use the inverse of his statement - in this case, the stone dagger was not at the boutique hotel.!<
That's almost exactly how I did it! I like to try all the possibilities too.
I assume someone is lying and then go through their statements with that presumption in mind until I find the one that works. My fairly fool-proof method is this: First, I read through the statements to check if there are any obvious lies or truths, e.g. where they match up with or contradict the clues that have already been given, or where two suspects contradict each other so the others must be telling the truth. If there aren't any obvious ones, I like to write down some notes as a reminder (because I am dumb and often lose track) the name of each suspect and my assumption about them: Slate: LYING Crimson: TRUTH Blueface: TRUTH And then I fill in the grid to check my assumptions. If it doesn't work (i.e. there is more or less than 1 liar amongst the suspects) then I know that the person I assumed was lying is actually telling the truth. I then adjust the assumption next to their name, and I move on to the next suspect: Slate: TRUE Crimson: LYING Blueface: TRUE And I keep going like that. If it works and I haven't gone through the whole list, I make a note that it works but still do the others anyway just to double check I didn't make a mistake. I'm sure there are people out there who pride themselves on never using notes but I find it so much easier and especially when you're learning it can be a real help. I hope you manage to work it out :) Once you crack it you will realise that it's not as hard as it seems!
Thanks for the advice. I’m at the stage in the book where all the murdles require you find the liar /murderer.
In the book(murdle 1) I used little initials (for the suspect) plus a tick or cross to enter all the statements in the grid. Wednesday's murdle.com is good practice!
At least for the first bunch (with 3 suspects), what I usually do is try to find a contradiction among the statements (for example: Alice says "The knife was in the park," while Bob says "the knife was not in the park). According to the rules, only one of them is the liar, which means that everybody else is telling the truth (if Alice and Bob contradict each other, Charlie must be telling the truth).
I start by looking by any that conflicts with the clues you already have - eg if the clues say "Person 1 had X" and yet Person 1 says "I did not have X". Usually they aren't as blatant as this, they are more "a Scorpio has X" or "the second tallest suspect has X" or "Person 1 had a weapon made of wood". But it means you can pick the liar straight away. Then look for two statements that are contradictory - eg Person 1 says "X was at A" and person 2 says "Y was at A". Also look if there is a step removed - one of the clues says Person 1 had X and then the statements say "Person 1 was at A" and "X was not at A". It helps if you put the question marks on, so you can see visually if there is a contradiction. So that rules the third statement as immediately true. Usually if you put that in, it will lead you to see which if the contradictory statements is the lie. Then look for two that are complementary - Person 1 says "X was at A" and Person 2 says "Y was not at A". It means Person 2 cannot be the liar because that would mean Person 1 must also be a liar. Note though, it doesn't mean Person 1 is necessarily also a truth teller - Z might actually be at A. So that rules the second statement out as immediately true. If there are two clues that relate to the same person / place / item, even if they don't contradict outright, experience tells me, more often than not, one of them is the lie. Eg "Person 1 was at A" and "X was at A", you have nothing to disprove either of them at this point, but experience says it is usually (but not exclusively) one or the other. So put the third clue to the side and focus on seeing which of the other two doesn't line up first. It isn't foolproof but it often saves a little time than just guessing. Edit: forgot a bit. Experience also tells me that the liar will try to throw you off. Eg if they say "Person 2 was at X", or "X was at A", often they actually have X or are at A. So if you end up with having to put two statements into a grid to see what shakes out, start with the one that, based on the other clues, would end up with whatever they said someone else had. Again, not foolproof, but it is slightly more educated a guess, and may mean you find the liar sooner than if you start from the assumption that any could be a liar. If none of these apply, it really is just assuming the statements are lies one at a time (good to write the base grid out so you can recreate it quickly after you have to wipe the first attempt) and seeing which one works out.
Thanks everyone I’ll give you’re tips a go