Be The Sherlock Holmes # 2

A & C say the same thing, meaning, they aren't lying as its given that only the killer would lie. Next, if to the question posed by the coroner, "How did the murderer come in?", saying some random thing would mean that the person is lying and hence B is the killer.

I have a different explanation to that. I think, if the coroner says that the murderer was one of those who lived in the house, that means the murderer's footprints will be near the door, because he might have the key to the murdered man's room, as he lives in the same house, so he does not have to enter through the window, the coroner therefore will know that B is the liar since he said through the window when it was obvious that the murderer was someone from the house, as coroner said.

let us test the first statement ! if it was untrue then it would mean that both A and C are lying .........which is not possible since we have assumed that only the murderer would lie! So, it means that A&C are telling the truth..... which further implies that C who spoke contrary to A&C is lying and hence is the murderer!!!

As there are four persons, the statements can be arranged in a table form.

Statement : if true statement : if false statement

 A. Door                   Window

 B. Window                  Door

 C. Door                     Window

 D. Door/Window            Door/Window

Now, as one of them is liar, so we take the 2nd column as our result. But taking D as window will nullify the result. So, except D, or taking D as Door, the majority of blaming will be on B. So, the answer is B.

The murderer can only come through one entry point. Which is, the door (Since both A & C said so, and can't both be lying.)

The guy who's saying something other than the door, is lying. B lied.

So the condition goes that only one (the killer) is lying. A or C say the same thing so if they both lie, it goes against the condition of only one liar. (Case 1): D tells the truth. A or C can't be the killer (stated above). B lies by elimination. (Case 2): D lies. A or C can't be the killer (stated above). B tells the truth, but the killer can't go through the window and the wall at the same time (contradiction). So by deduction, the only person that seems to be the killer is B.

A & C took the closest possible answer, "The door". D took the possibilities from "The door" and "The window" Yet B took "The window", which I deduced that if the murderer was one of the people who lived in the house, why bother doing it through the window when the murderer(as one of the family members of the victim) can simply approach Mr. Prasad through the door. Leaving Mr. Prasad not noticing the killing intent of his brother B

A and C cannot both be the murderer. As they are both speaking the same statement, none of them must be the murderer. They are therefore telling the truth. D's response is plausible, as it only means they do not know. As we already know that only one person can be lying, the murderer has to be B, because their statement contradicts the statements of A and C.

A & C say the same thing, i.e., that the murderer came in through the door. Both of them cannot be lying, as it is said that only one person is the culprit, and he is the only one who lies. D says that he doesn't know how the murderer came in; this can be considered as the truth if he wasn't the murderer, or a lie if he was the murderer. However, B says something totally random, that the murderer came in through the window. This means that this is a lie, and B is the culprit.

If all of the brothers live inside the house then, of course, they are coming in using the door. Two of them answered it normally. One said "I don't know" means he doesn't know any idea about what happened. Now, if you are coming in the house where you usually stay, why would you enter the window?