It's Friday the 13th, and you and a group of 7 friends from the "Survivor" club belonging to University LeMao (A, B, C, D, E, F, and G) go camping.

You're all pretty good friends, and talk quite a bit during their hike up the Mountain named Nuffingwrong. As the talk continues, A gets into an argument with E. B, being A's best friend decides to help out A, only to have F step in and make things worse - F decides to help E (They're best friends, after all). For the next 5 minutes, a constant yelling and screaming pierces your ears. Reluctant to get involved, you take G and head off to find a camping spot. The last thing you hear from that area are the words "I'm gonna kill you, I swear it!" from one of the 4 people arguing, followed by C and D stepping in to stop the fight.

After you find a good spot, you and G head back to rendezvous with the group, and tell them about the great spot you guys picked out. The fight seems to be over, everyone seems to be good friends again, and the night seems cheerful.

As the sun sets, the group heads out to the spot you picked to set up camp, and split up the jobs.

  • A and B go to get firewood.

  • C and D are tasked with setting up the tents.

  • E and F are sent to go get some vegetation (berries and/or fruit) for the nights dinner.

You and G end up with the task of sharpening sticks and going to hunt for small critters to cook.

15 minutes pass since everyone has split off to do their jobs. G mentions to you that he needs to go to the washroom, and heads off into the forest. He comes back a couple minutes later, and the two of you continue with your job. For the next half hour, everything seems calm and serene; you and G are having a great time talking while sharpening sticks, discussing how to properly throw them and what the best form for javelin throwing is, when all of a sudden, two bloodcurdling screams resonate from the direction of the campsite.

The two of you try to rush back to the campsite. You follow as G leads, but you both end up getting lost along the way, and don't arrive at the campsite for another 20 minutes. You find that most of the group is already there, waiting for you. Looking around, you notice that E and F's hands are stained with red liquid, C and D are lying face down on the floor, and B is in a pool of blood - a quick look tells you that he is dead. "Where's A", you ask. Nobody knows - everyone instantly rushes back into the forest to look for him, and it doesn't take long before you find him face down in a river - lifeless.

You all head back to camp, and check on C and D. Touching the back of their heads, you notice that your hands are wet and have become stained with red. You gently wake them up, and it seems that they're alright. C and D tell you that they were knocked out by something - You fill them in on what has happened so far, and start the investigation.

Here's what you know about the members of this social group:

  • A and B are your average Joe's - they're not particularly weak or strong. They're prone to arguments, but they're also very hard working people. They also work a lot better individually.

  • A has OCD and can't stand things being messy.

  • C and D are best friends, and are big time geniuses. Like, 140 IQ type genius. They hate conflict, and they're perpetually scared of everything - fortunately for them, their high IQ leads them to preemptively prevent conflict very often - one thing they've done is jack up their bodies by going to the gym a lot.

  • E and F are nerdy environmental studies majors - they pretty much can't lift more than their backpacks, and they're nature lovers like no other.

  • G is a loner - he's prone to violence, and gets upset at the weirdest things. The group pretty much consists of all his friends.

Checking the area, you notice the following things:

  • There's a pile of firewood at the campsite, piled extremely neatly, but missing the top piece of the triangle.

  • The fire hasn't been started yet.

  • There are some crushed berries near B's body

  • There are no major signs of struggle at the campsite (No scuffle marks, etc).

  • The tents have been set up.

  • You manage to find what seems to be the murder weapon regarding B's murder: A single log (firewood size) with red on the bark. It seems to be blood. It seems to fit perfectly on the top of the pile of firewood previously mentioned.

You do some questioning for each member of the group in order to see if you can find out the truth. Here's what you manage to divine from each person:

A: N/A - he's dead, but you notice an EpiPen when you search his clothing - it seems that he's extremely allergic to raspberries.

B: N/A - he's dead, but upon investigation of his body you notice that the blood loss mainly resulted from a heavy blow to the head. There's firewood under his body, suggesting that he was carrying it at the time of death and fell on top of it after getting hit.

C & D: "We don't know what happened - we were knocked out by someone, and after you woke us up, we've been with you the whole time." You point out that C's hands are red. "That's cus we were eating the berries E and F brought back." You mention that only one of them has stained hands - to which they tell you secretly that they're a couple and that C was feeding D. No one in the group knows about this, and they ask you to keep it a secret.

E & F: "We were out collecting berries - we've made several drops off over there" (They point to a pile of berries in a bucket) "And when we got back from our 3rd round, we saw B lying there, dead. We didn't know what to do, so we screamed!"

G: "I've been with you the whole time. I'll show you where I went to piss if you want..."

Q: What happened that night? Who is/are the killer(s)?

Hints to be posted later - if needed.

Hints/For clarity:

Question: Were E and F together the whole time? Answer: Yes.

EDIT MADE: I changed the wording for the section where you run back to camp with G, for clarity!

Because way too many people are falling for this red herring;

G did not kill B - he doesn't know the way back to camp! If he tried he would never have made it there and back, and pissed, all within 5 minutes. Also, he has no motive.

Because Duncan has the right idea:

B was in fact the person to scream "I'm gonna kill you, I swear it" from the argument.

Because people are giving up - don't give up! Here's a hint!

E and F traveled to a single bush area for berries.

  • $\begingroup$ Crazy and awesome! +1. $\endgroup$ Mar 16, 2015 at 23:25
  • $\begingroup$ Were E and F together all the time? $\endgroup$ Mar 17, 2015 at 0:11
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ I just wasted 20 minutes doing the tests linked to from your user profile! :-p $\endgroup$ Mar 17, 2015 at 0:47
  • $\begingroup$ @randal'thor, I get a score of 94! $\endgroup$
    – A E
    Mar 17, 2015 at 18:09
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ You, as a group, look for A together. $\endgroup$
    – Aify
    Mar 17, 2015 at 18:16

4 Answers 4


Some preliminary conclusions

  • "A and B [...] work a lot better individually." So they probably separated while collecting firewood.

  • "A has OCD and can't stand things being messy. [...] There's a pile of firewood at the campsite, piled extremely neatly." So the firewood that's already there was probably brought by A.

  • "There's firewood under [B's] body, suggesting that he was carrying it at the time of death and fell on top of it after getting hit." B was only just bringing his firewood to the campsite when he was attacked.

  • "C and D are tasked with setting up the tents" and later "The tents have been set up", so there seems to be no reason for C and D to have left the campsite. Let's assume they were there all the time.

  • "E and F [...] pretty much can't lift more than their backpacks," so it doesn't look like either of them could have hit B with a chunk of wood hard enough to kill him, or knocked out C and D.

  • The campsite bears "no major signs of struggle" (or, we assume, of bodies having been dragged there), so we can assume B was killed there and C and D were knocked out there.

  • A and B are best friends, so we can assume neither of them killed each other.

  • C and D are best friends, so we can assume neither of them knocked out the other.

  • By the logic now stated in the latest edit to the question, G did not kill B.

Main logical argument

We've now eliminated A, E, F, G, and presumably yourself (unless you're an unreliable narrator) as B's killer, leaving only C and D. Since they were together the whole time, they must have conspired together to kill B. For their motive, I quote from Duncan's answer: "B must have been the one to scream 'I'm going to kill you' in the first argument and we know that C and D work to prevent violence. Being smart, they must have figured that one death is better than 2 deaths." More specifically, D must have been the actual killer since (s)he's the one without red hands and the only red you found on the log was blood.

Now we've eliminated B, E, F, and again presumably yourself as the person who knocked out C and D. So this must have been done by A or G. By the same logic as was used to eliminate G as B's killer, he can't have knocked them out. A also has the best motive as he was B's best friend - perhaps he saw them kill B? The other possibility is that they weren't really knocked out at all and were only faking, but let's assume your observations were correct on this one.

Now we've eliminated B, C, D, and again presumably yourself as A's killer. That leaves E, F, and G. E and F are the ones with a motive, given the earlier quarrel. They were together all the time, and their task was picking berries. So it would've been easy for them to corner A near the stream, kill him with raspberries, and then return to the campsite and scream.


D (accomplice: C) killed B with a log, in order to pre-emptively stop him from killing E and F. A attacked and stunned C and D in a grief-fuelled rage. E and F killed A with raspberries, motivated by their earlier quarrel.

FULL BREAKDOWN AND SOLUTION (Aify's version, in a sort of story mode)

You are not the murderer, so rule yourself out of both cases.

B's Murder

Ruling out G:

G can't be the murderer of B, as he only had one chance in the first 15 minutes of the night.

Reason 1:

  • Because E and F did not scream until 30 minutes later, after their third trip back, G doesn't make the time slot (Assuming equal length trips since they went to the same bush area each time to pick berries (See hints) - 15 mins per trip).

Time line: 15 mins [G leaves to piss], (E F 1st Round to camp) || 30 mins (E F second round to Camp) || 45 mins (E F 3rd round to camp) {Scream is heard}

By the above time line, you can see that if G killed B, E and F would have discovered the body much sooner.

Reason 2: - G got lost with you going back to camp. He would never have been able to make a 2.5 minute trip there and back, AND take a piss. (You know he actually did take a piss because he offers to show you where he went).

Ruling out A, E and F:

E and F lack the strength to enact the murder of B - even if they mustered enough strength to strike down B, it's highly improbable they could knock out C and D at the same time. Since A and B work better individually, it stands to reason that they split up to collect wood. A got back from his first round sometime before B did, proof being the OCD and the neat pile of firewood. A can't have killed B due to them being besties - furthermore, if A killed B, he would have put the piece of wood back on the pile due to his OCD. Assuming equal trip lengths for E and F, each trip they took lasted 15 minutes. Since tent is finished and E/F didn't scream on the second trip back, the time period of B's murder is between the second trip and the third trip.

How B died:

While A was gone, C took the firewood from the top of the pile and snuck up behind B and struck him with one mighty blow, the blood from the blow splashed onto C's hands, which C masked with the raspberry juice - D, being in love with C, helps to cover up and they come up with the plan of C feeding D (to explain C's hands). C and D, being geniuses, used raspberry juice on the back of their heads and pretended that they were knocked out. E and F, returning from their trip, screamed upon sight of a bloody body. B was the one who said "I'm gonna kill you, I swear it!" The motive of C and D lies in the preemptive prevention of that aggression.

C and D are the killers of B

A's Murder

Ruling people out:

G can't be the murderer of A - G doesn't have stained hands, so if G killed A, G must have drowned him, which would result in him being wet somewhere, either from standing in the water, or from holding A's head in the water. Also, 5 minutes is very little time to go and kill someone, piss, and come back. The fact that G offered to show you where he pissed indicates that it was nowhere near A's murder spot, since it would only cast suspicion on himself if it was near. Here, his honesty is his saving grace.

C and D were together at the campsite - the tent was finished, so they can't have left in the first section of time since they need time to put up the tent. C and D were not wet - meaning they did not drown A. A still had his EpiPen on him at the river - unless C and D left the camp to put it back on him, it would be impossible for C and D to make A get an allergic reaction. It's a severe reaction, it would likely have happened on the spot and A would've instantly used his EpiPen at the camp.

Ruling out B:

Main reason: B and A are besties. B would never harm A.

Sub reason: A also had the opportunity to drop off wood at the campsite before leaving to get more; B was only just returning from his first trip before he was killed. That means that B would not have been able to kill A before A dropped off wood (which was anytime before the second return of E/F, but unlikely to be before the first trip of E/F). If B killed A, B would not have had ample time to get wood and go back to camp. B killing A also doesn't make sense because his hands were not stained, and his clothing was not wet - if he killed A, he would either have to get wet drowning A, or force berries down A's throat, resulting in stained hands.

How A died: Any reason to use A drowning as a cause of death can be instantly discounted because nobody had wet clothing. If anyone were to drown A, they wouldve had to get wet. A wasn't particularly weak OR strong, and would have put up a fight - splashing will ensue.

E and F were extremely scared of A and B, and when they saw A, they knew they had to do something before A helped B kill them. Not having enough physical strength to (literally) take down A without getting themselves harmed seriously, they opted for the option of giving A raspberries (Knowing that he is severely allergic).

You can imagine something like "Close your eyes, A, we found something really tasty in the woods. Can you guess what it is?" Proceed to feed A, stealing his EpiPen, the putting him face down in the water

They take the EpiPen from him while his eyes are closed, and when he dies they put him face down in the river and replace the EpiPen to make it look like a drowning. This makes it look like they can't be the murderers, since they're too weak - but remember they're nerds, and they're smart. To pull this off, they took advantage of A's friendship. "E and F's hands are stained with red liquid" - this is the raspberry juice from their berry picking endeavors, and the key clue to connect A's allergy to E and F's berry picking.

E and F are also the only people who had access to A while he was in the woods within the time line.

E and F killed A

Main List of Red Herrings:

  • G's personality

  • Campfire not lit (this was placed to confuse people)

  • Crushed berries (They came from E and F dropping them when they found B, but it's irrelevant unless you use it as a reason to discount E and F from the murder of B; eg: surprise caused them to drop/squash anything they were holding).

  • 3
    $\begingroup$ Impressive... Rand al'Thor $\endgroup$ Mar 31, 2015 at 14:31
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @LewsTherin I used to have exactly the same profile pic as you have now!! Are you inside my head? Are you me? :-o $\endgroup$ Mar 31, 2015 at 22:07
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Am I you? Light, no! But you are me. Has the madness taken you yet? $\endgroup$ Apr 1, 2015 at 8:27
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @LewsTherin Oh Light, why do I have a madman inside my head? Why? Why? The lessons on using saidin have been helpful though ;-) (Blood and ashes, this is getting too surreal.) $\endgroup$ Apr 1, 2015 at 9:32
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Lol xD. Burn me, but I thought you've accepted who you are, who we are? (ToM) :D $\endgroup$ Apr 1, 2015 at 10:15

My thoughts, building off of rand al'thor's post:

Let's put things into a timeline as best we can.

  • C&D set up the tents.
  • A&B collect firewood at the same time. E&F are bringing berries back.
  • A (being OCD) neatly stacks all the firewood (it's possible this is just his firewood, or firewood from both A&B, probably irrelevant)
  • B continues to bring firewood.
  • It seems that C&D have red on the back of their heads
  • Keep in mind that C&D are also very, very smart

What does this mean?

B's murderer is:



A is "prone to arguments" and has OCD. He had neatly stacked up all this wood, when B came along with more wood. He freaked out (nowhere to neatly put it - the woodpile is already done) and grabbed the top piece of wood to attack B.

What about C&D?

C&D were there when A killed B. But, being perpetually scared of things, they were... well... scared. They also recognized, being smart, that A would just kill them, so they told A that he could knock them out instead and they wouldn't say anything. A did with the same wood log that he used to kill B, so that explains the red on the back of their head.

And for A?

A, needing to leave the campsite, goes off into the woods. He knows that E&F are returning with more berries, so he tries to go in a different direction. He runs into G, going to take a piss. G is mad at him for initiating the argument earlier and, since both are prone to arguments/fighting, they argue and G pushes him into the river and he drowns.

When C&D wake up:

They could just tell about A killing B, but being smart they have already figured out that E, F or G must have killed A. They choose to stay silent to prevent more conflict, reasoning that if you knew A killed B, you'd start investigating who killed A more and that would make the killer (who they may or may not know) more violent. I think they're telling the truth about the berries - they'd make such a cute couple, I've been rooting for them all along anyway!

[EDIT - Attempt 2]

Leaving Attempt 1 so others can also learn from it. Building off of the same ideas as above.

B's murderer is:

C. He's the only one with red on his hands that doesn't really have a valid reason. B must have been the one to scream "I'm going to kill you" in the first argument and we know that C/D work to prevent violence. Being smart, they must have figured that one death is better than 2 deaths. They used a nearby tool (the log). We also know C is strong enough to kill B this way.

C&D knocked out by:

A. He probably came back into the camp to discover B dead and got angry because his best friend was dead. Not strong enough to kill C&D, he grabbed the same log, snuck up behind them and hit them on the back of the head. This explains why the backs of their heads have red on them. He then ran off into the forest (in grief? in rage? sure, why not!)

A dies by the hand of:

Raspberries! This one I'm not sure of (nor am I the previous ones, but my logic here is definitely a stretch). Nobody was wet from holding A under, so I'm guessing it's related to the EpiPen. If the log that was used to kill B fell into the pile of berries near him (hence why it was crushed) then it could have caused an allergic reaction in A when he picked it up. One of the effects of raspberry allergies can be dizziness and fainting, so it's possible A fainted and fell into the river, especially if he was out of breath from hitting C&D and running away.

[EDIT] Attempt 3 (after this I'm starting a new response)

The killers (both listed here) are:

C and D. C killed B and D killed A.

The logic for B:

For B's death, we've established that A didn't do it as B was his best friend. E and F are too weak to hit him hard enough, and G was with you the whole time and without the navigation skills to get back to camp, knock out C&D, kill B and get back to you (and, presumably, urinate) in just a few minutes. So that leaves C or D. C must have killed B - his hands were red, which may not necessarily be the blood (it might just be from berries), but notably D's hands weren't red, this leads us to:

The logic for A:

C must have killed B because D was off killing A. He had been eating some berries, but his hands were clean later because he used them to drown A in the river. The red washed off. As someone else said, they then pretended to be knocked out.

Why the murders were done?

C and D are actually a couple. The red on the back of their heads was from them making out (as someone else said), but they don't want anyone to know. A discovered them in camp, so D chased him down and drowned him. C killed B because B came back into camp and he knew he would notice D gone, which would lead to D being found out - by killing B, C preemptively avoided conflict (which we know they do). They then pretended to be unconscious.

  • $\begingroup$ Logically flawed answer, but a good try nevertheless. A has no guarantee that C and D won't tattle; C and D know this; they would never willingly put themselves at the mercy of A, especially since A could just kill them to keep them silent while they're knocked out. Also, if G were the one to kill A in a river, G would have been wet somewhere (sleeves or feet) in order to push A in. There's a much better logical path to follow that will lead you to the correct answer. Also, A and B are best friends. A would never kill B... $\endgroup$
    – Aify
    Mar 17, 2015 at 15:46
  • $\begingroup$ Put in a second attempt. Let me know how I did! $\endgroup$
    – Duncan
    Mar 17, 2015 at 18:02
  • $\begingroup$ Good try, but there are still logical flaws in this answer! For example, if A came back and used the log at all, A would have put it back on the pile due to the OCD - not to mention that it's highly unlikely that A would've been able to knock out both bodybuilders at the same time, or even in a reasonable time frame. C has a valid reason to have red on his hands - berries with D, secret relationship, lovers feeding each other... A also couldn't have just fainted and fell into the river - it's a SEVERE allergic reaction; he would notice and use the EpiPen right away $\endgroup$
    – Aify
    Mar 17, 2015 at 18:13
  • $\begingroup$ More on the allergy; it's severe enough that if he picked up the log and got a reaction at the camp he would be dead in less than a minute; no chance of him being able to reach the river. Also, if A were able to knock out C/D, he would've just killed them - why knock them out then run away? An Avg Joe would definitely finish the job if he struck them the first time in rage. $\endgroup$
    – Aify
    Mar 17, 2015 at 18:15
  • $\begingroup$ Third attempt in - if this one's not it, then I'll just start a new answer. $\endgroup$
    – Duncan
    Mar 17, 2015 at 23:00

My guess is that

D killed B with a log, C killed A with berries
I think G taking a piss is a red herring.
Out of the remainder, only D doesn't have red hands, which would have been on the murder log.
Also, being big and strong, how could both C and D be taken out at the same time?
So, they each killed A and B, then faked getting hit on the back of the head.

  • $\begingroup$ What is the logic for these explanations? I see neither motive for C/D nor reasoning to dismiss G. I can only say that you've fallen prey to the ridiculous amount of Red herrings in the story! (Basically, this answer isn't able to explain everything that happened that night) All the clues are there; I've already had 4 people solve it logically perfectly without help - you can do it! $\endgroup$
    – Aify
    Mar 17, 2015 at 15:33

G killed B, C killed A.

C and D both have red stains on the back of their heads, but only C's hands are red. If we assume the backs of their heads were red from kissing someone who was fondling their hair, it's clear that D has been cheating with someone who's been handling the berries. A is allergic, so he's ruled out. The narrator and G weren't present, and E + F were together the whole time so neither of them would make a move with D.

Which means that D must have been cheating with B.

Let's assume C finds out, he wants to hurt B but he knows he'd never be able to overpower him. B died from a blunt strike to the head in the middle of the campsite, not exactly the method operandi of a genius, the only two people who'd fit that kind of attack are A and G.

C's plan was probably to slip raspberries into A's food, knowing he's allergic but has an epipen. A/B and E/F have already had an argument so C hopes that B will get hurt when A accuses E and F of trying to kill him. Unfortunately something goes wrong. A ingests his food, panics, and doesn't realize why he's going into anaphylactic shock. He stumbles into the wood and collapses face down in the river. G hears the commotion and sees A die shortly after B returns to the campsite, G incorrectly assumes that B killed A (G appears to be mildly autistic so wouldn't necessarily pick up on the fact that they're close friends).

G kills B in revenge of A, and also to protect his other friends. At this point C has just attacked D and knocked him unconscious, but after seeing B's death he goes back to D and feigns unconsciousness until the narrator returns to the campsite.

  • $\begingroup$ This is a great answer, reading how D was cheating with B was great - however, it too is logically flawed. 1) C can easily over power B, as can be seen in the notes about each character; C is jacked up, B is just an average Joe. C and D are in love, they'd never cheat on each other (but I admit, this is a great twist for another story), and C and D were together the whole time, leaving no spot for B to get involved. I can't see the logic behind G seeing A die and seeing B return, but not running over to check on A or coming back to tell you. C wouldn't hurt D. They're lovers! $\endgroup$
    – Aify
    Mar 17, 2015 at 16:46
  • $\begingroup$ Yeah I was just reading that C and D are stronger than A and B, that alone dismantles the theory. G wouldn't tell you because he's worried of getting accused of murder when he was only protecting the group. $\endgroup$
    – Mark
    Mar 17, 2015 at 16:50
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ G wouldve told you - In the story, G offers to show you where he pissed (this is supposed to portray his blunt honesty) - clearly, he wouldn't hesitate to show you A's body. Being innocent, his train of thought would probably be "If I did it why would I show you?" $\endgroup$
    – Aify
    Mar 17, 2015 at 17:05

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.