The Mystery of the Three Suicides [SOLVED]

It has been a moment since we’ve had a mystery gameboard to tackle, so I figured I’d try my hand at posting one, hopefully to the enjoyment of you all. I have never done this before, so don’t expect too much. Hopefully my meager offering will stave off someone’s boredom for a while, at least.

This game will run on pictoshark’s Mystery Nugget Ruleset™, copyright pictoshark, all rights reversed. The short version is that you have to come up with blue truths that explain the truth of the mystery, answering whatever lime questions I might throw your way. I will use red truths that are absolute literal truth to strike down your blue theories until you find the true solution, which is something I have written down before the game has begun. The narrative of the mystery contains no falsehoods, but that does not mean it is your friend - misdirection and omitting information is still fair game.

Since I’m too lazy to write the full rules here, you can go check the full rules from here.

I have no idea if this will be trivially easy and solved in ten posts, or perhaps fairly difficult. It’s difficult to tell from the writer’s perspective. In any case, I will extend to everyone the offer of solo play - if you wish to tackle this gameboard alone or with a group of your choice, I can run the game in a private conversation for you. This thread is a free-for-all where anyone may participate, though if you do decide to go solo, I’d prefer it if you did not post your findings here unless you give up on the solo thing and join the free discussion in this thread.

Since I have a summer internship, on weekdays I only have time to run the game at evenings, but I suppose that won’t be too much of a problem. If things turn into a slog, I can try recruiting someone to co-gamemaster for me.

Well, let’s get right into it. I will post the mystery narrative in a minute or two.

The Mystery of the Three Suicides

Four people had gathered in an obligatory mansion to spend the weekend together. Those people may have had actual names, but referring to them as B, C, D and E will suffice. E, the owner of the mansion, had sent invitations to his acquintances B, C and D to enjoy a weekend of games at his place, and the three happily answered the call. Things went well until the evening of the first day, but things eventually took a grim turn.

As the main event was starting, B, C and D noticed that E had been out of sight for a while. All four of them had been wandering the mansion freely, so it was not unusual for one or two of them to occasionally go grab some food in the kitchen or otherwise leave the rest of the group, but E hadn’t been seen for at least an hour. They talked about it, and decided to go look for him. Eventually, their search left no corner unturned other than E’s room, which was locked.

They knocked on the door, but there was no response. Figuring that E must be inside his room, the three decided to force the door open. Entering the room, B was the first one to see E’s corpse. E was laying on his back on the bed, the sheets soaked in blood along with his shirt. The shirt was torn near the heart, revealing a gruesome red mess beneath. “Oh my god…! He’s… E’s dead!”, exclaimed B. And, indeed, E was dead.

C and D rushed into the room. Besides the body, there was little of interest in the room. A bloody knife was on the floor beside the bed, and the room key was resting on a tray on the nightstand beside some cookies and a teacup. It did not take long for the three to start discussing how this murder could have happened. It did not take long for them to reach a conclusion, either. The door was locked with the only key inside the room. The windows were likewise locked, and the room was located in the second floor of the mansion. What other choice was there than to decide it was a suicide? The only opening to the room was the small gap between the door and the floor, but there’s no way anyone could stab someone through that in the heart under any circumstance.

It was very late, and the three decided to retire to their rooms for the night. Waking up next morning, B and C met on the corridor that connected their rooms, and decided to go look for D. In an eerily repetitive scenario, D was nowhere to be found, and the door to his room did not budge. They knocked on the door, but there was no response. They tried forcing the door open, but this door appeared to be made of sturdier stuff. As D’s room was on the first floor, B suggested he go break into the room through the window and open the lock from the inside. C agreed to wait in front of the door just in case they just missed D earlier and he came to investigate the noise.

It took B a while to get to the window. As the windows to D’s room were locked from the inside, he had to break one to enter the room. Inside the room, what he saw was like the scene of E’s murder was repeated with the victim’s identity the only apparent difference. D was lying on the bed in a pool of blood, a stab wound near his heart. A bloody knife was laying on the floor next to the bed. On a nightstand next to the bed, the room key was neatly placed onto a tray with some cookies and a teacup.

After a moment or two, B got the door open, and C entered the room to witness the scene for himself. Deciding that things are getting too creepy, C decided it was about time to leave. B, likewise thinking that enough is enough, followed C to the garage outside the mansion, where their cars were waiting. The two parted ways at the garage, and B headed home. After a couple of hours of driving, inside the safety of his own home, he went to rest on the bed, unaware that three people had died in the mansion during that weekend.

Two reds to get a couple of trivialities out of the way.

All three victims did not commit suicide. At least one was murdered by someone else.

Nobody who is not mentioned in the narrative can have anything to do with the mystery.

And then, the obvious limes to get things properly started.

How did E die?

How did D die?

How did C die?


Well then, let’s get some more obvious things out of the way:

Another key exists that can open E’s door. Thus, one among B, C, and D could have murdered E.

Another key exists that can open D’s door. Thus, one among B and C could have murdered D.

The doors to D’s and E’s room can also be opened by using method X.

C died via an accident before he could leave the mansion.

C died by trap Y which was prepared by someone else.


E and D’s room doors both have only one key that can open their locks. For the purposes of this mystery, nothing other than a key can open a lock, other than forcing the door open, irreparably breaking the lock.

C was killed by a direct action taken by someone, not an accident or a remote trap.

C was poisened before B and C parted ways. The poison only took effect after B and C parted ways.

C’s death was caused by a wound directly inflicted with a weapon. He did not die of poisoning, asphyxiation or such.

I have a question: Can the doors only be locked with a key from the inside, or can a door be locked from both the inside and outside?

Well if you really want to start at the end.

C concealed a wound he’d received at some earlier point in the day, and only died from it after B left.

Regarding doors…

With the proper key, a door can be locked from either the inside or the outside.

Starting at the end is rather understandable. After all, if you get it to work, the rest should be a breeze, right…?

Anyhow, concealing wounds…? I’m afraid that’s not going to fly. C died within 15 minutes of receiving his fatal wound.

That’s not enough to hurt me, especially since no exact timeframe is given for that final discovery. :stuck_out_tongue:

[color=blue]That morning, C and D injured each other.
Both wounds were fatal but not instant.
Then D got into his room and locked the door before succumbing to his injury.
Meanwhile, C concealed his wound but died after B left.[/color]

I’m not gonna name a specific person, but…

E was killed after letting the killer into his room. After killing him, the killer swapped his key with E’s and locked the room with E’s key.

Hm, should be interesting to be on this side of the table…

Hey midsummer, I was wondering if you’d mine repeating this in the red:

D and E were both killed with the weapons found in their rooms

And how about I throw a real wild shot out there…

The four people involved with this incident were referred to as B, C, D and E. This naming convention implies the existence of someone referred to as “A”, and this naming convention is sufficient to get around the quoted red. Therefore, a fifth person could have orchestrated these crimes.

Oh my. If it is a timeframe you wish for, that is what you shall receive.

The timespan between the moment B left C alone in front of the door in order to enter D’s room through the window and the moment B left the mansion with his car is no longer than 15 minutes.

How do you suppose C and D injured each other in such a limited amount of time?

Because as it happens, I have bad news for you.

The door to D’s room was not unlocked even once during the time between B leaving C alone and B reaching the window to D’s room.

I’m afraid the key on the tray beside E’s bed was the key to E’s room.

Oh look, it’s a pictoshark. And he’s asking for repetitions. How the tables have turned.

I refuse. If they were not killed with weapons found in their rooms, then what were they killed with?

Regarding the naming convention… It’s a fun theory, but I’m afraid a mere implication is not enough evidence that this person “A” exists. The narrative must directly refer to this person for them to have any part in the mystery, a mere implication of their existence is not enough.

Ooh, I have another repetition request! It should help clear up some misunderstandings too, so you really ought to go for it…

In the case of the first two deaths, only one key was found inside each room, and was found in a tray. In addition in both cases this key was the sole key to the sole door that entered the room, and was not moved from when the door was broken until it was discovered in the tray.

Another repetition? Well, that actually is a fairly useful clarification. Also, what is this red text you are using in my territory.

In the case of the first two deaths, only one key was found inside each room, and was found in a tray. In addition in both cases this key was the sole key to the sole door that entered the room, and was not moved from when the door was broken until it was discovered in the tray.

Oh, allow me to retract the redness of my words. I promise it won’t happen again.

Before I attempt to sew this together with a single thread, I’ll give you a chance to cut me off.

Repeat it:

Excusing the single time that B broke the window into D’s room, no non door entrance is important to the solution of this mystery!

Now we’re getting to the good stuff.
The door didn’t have to be ‘unlocked even once’ during that time. It simply wasn’t locked in the beginning. The narrative only said it did not budge, but this was due to some other force keeping it in place, possibly applied by D. The rest plays out the same as in my previous theory except with D coming out of his already unlocked room and locking it afterwards.

I see lots of “a” in these sentences. **Not all of these refer to the word “a” and instead refer to an identity of a person A. This person died, explaining three deaths occurring.**

A single thread? How impressive, how extravagant. Let’s see what you’ve got.

However, that repetition request is a bit extreme. I’ll instead just give you some info on the windows.

Windows can only be locked from the inside. If a window is locked, it cannot be opened without breaking the window. Both of the times in the narrative when B broke into a murder scene, the windows were locked. Excluding the window B broke to get into D’s room, the windows of D and E’s room were unbroken when B broke into those rooms as described in the narrative. No exits or entries other than doors or windows are relevant for this mystery.

Gasp, you found it. A way for me to make your life more miserable. During the time C was alone in front of the door, other than B opening the door from the inside after discovering the corpse, the door was not opened even once.

A valiant effort, however, no lowercase “a” can refer to a person “A”, and an uppercase “A” could only refer to a person in a sentence in which it would be grammatically correct for it to do so. Things such as “A bloody knife” thus cannot be references to a person “A”.