Clues & Culprits › Hints › Oct 4, 2026 Evil
Spoiler-Free Hints for Oct 4, 2026
Stuck on the Evil case, “The Emerald That Went Under the Knife”? Open one nudge at a time. Nothing below reveals a verdict unless you click a box marked spoiler.
Back to the case Rules refresher
About this case
Madame Yvette Laroche went into theatre at Queen Adelaide Hospital wearing the Laroche emerald, which she swore she would never take off. She woke without it. Her insurers have been asked for £2 million, and not one hospital camera saw a thing.
This Evil case seats 25 suspects on a 5×5 grid. 21 of them carry a clue; the other 4 only have something to say about themselves. 9 of the steps can only be proven by reading two or more clues together.
Nudge 1 — where to start
The case opens with Jasper the orderly (E2) already proven. Their statement is enough on its own to prove one more suspect straight away — read it word by word, especially the counting words (exactly, neighbors, between).
None of the surgeons in Column B is innocent.— Jasper, orderly (E2)
Spoiler: who can I prove first?
Lena (B3) is a criminal, proven by Jasper’s statement.
Nudge 2 — the opening
6 suspects get proven in this stretch, across rows 1, 2 and 3, most of them in row 1. The statements doing the work are role counts, paired verdicts and “between” clues. Every step in this stretch needs just one statement. Tip: with role counts, find every suspect with that role (the nameplate badge helps) and count the proven ones.
Spoiler: whose statement to read
Jasper’s statement.
Spoiler: which suspect does that settle?
Lena (B3) — a criminal.
Nudge 3 — after about 6 proven suspects
6 suspects get proven in this stretch, across rows 1, 2, 3 and 4, most of them in row 4. The statements doing the work are neighbor counts, “between” clues and role counts. 4 steps here need 2 statements read together. Tip: with neighbor counts, a corner has three neighbors, an edge five, the middle eight — compare the count with what is left.
Spoiler: whose statements to read
Hana’s and Quinn’s statements, read together.
Spoiler: which suspect does that settle?
Mabel (C3) — innocent.
Nudge 4 — after about 12 proven suspects
6 suspects get proven in this stretch, across rows 1, 4 and 5, most of them in row 5. The statements doing the work are neighbor counts, direction clues and odd/even clues. 5 steps here need 3 statements read together. Tip: with direction clues, “above”, “below”, “left” and “right” cover the whole line in that direction, not just the next card.
Spoiler: whose statements to read
Hana’s, Suki’s and Theo’s statements, read together.
Spoiler: which suspect does that settle?
Yvette (E5) — a criminal.
Nudge 5 — the endgame
6 suspects get proven in this stretch, across rows 2, 3, 4 and 5, most of them in row 3. The statements doing the work are neighbor counts, shared-neighbor counts and odd/even clues. Every step in this stretch needs just one statement. Tip: with shared-neighbor counts, shared neighbors never include the two speakers themselves.
Spoiler: whose statement to read
Emil’s statement.
Spoiler: which suspect does that settle?
Pia (A4) — innocent.
The hardest step
The toughest moment needs 3 statements at once. If you’re stuck in the middle of the case, this is probably it.
Spoiler: the statements for the hardest step
Read Hana’s, Suki’s and Theo’s statements together. They settle Yvette.
Clue types in this case
role counts ×2, direction clues ×2, “between” clues ×2, neighbor counts ×7, shared-neighbor counts ×3, paired verdicts ×1, corner and edge counts ×1, if–then clues ×1, odd/even clues ×1 and comparisons ×1.
Questions
How many clues does this case have?
21 of the 25 suspects carry a clue. The rest only talk about themselves — you can hide those asides in Settings.
Where is the full solution?
The step-by-step walkthrough proves every verdict in order.