Printable Detective Party Game for kids - Free Printable

Let’s solve this step by step.

We are told that Dianna says:
> “Check the fingerprints. The kidnapper didn’t leave any. The set of fingerprint you DON’T discover is the person who committed the crime!”

Then we’re given a challenge:
> Find 4 hidden fingerprints in the playing area (we don’t see the playing area, but we can assume from context that 4 out of the 5 listed prints will be found).
> Compare them to the records below.
> The print that isn’t found = the true culprit.

The five people with fingerprint records are:
- Warren
- Sandra
- Darwin
- Dianna
- Andrew

Since only 4 fingerprints are to be found, one will be missing — and that missing one belongs to the kidnapper.

But wait — there’s a twist! Dianna made the statement… and she’s also one of the suspects. Could she be trying to trick us? Maybe not — let’s stick to the logic given.

The key instruction is:
> “The print that isn’t found is the person Sandra states is the true culprit.”

Wait — now it says *Sandra* states who the culprit is? But earlier it was Dianna’s statement. Let me re-read carefully.

Actually, looking again:

Dianna’s Statement #1 says:
> “The set of fingerprint you DON’T discover is the person who committed the crime!”

Then the CHALLENGE says:
> “Compare them to the records below. The print that isn’t found is the person Sandra states is the true culprit.”

Hmm — so now it’s saying Sandra is making a claim about who the culprit is? Or is it just wording?

Actually, rereading:
“The print that isn’t found is the person Sandra states is the true culprit.”

This seems like a misdirection or typo — because Sandra hasn’t made any statement here. Only Dianna has.

But perhaps it means: According to Dianna’s rule, the missing print is the culprit — and Sandra agrees with that? Or maybe it’s just poorly worded.

Let’s go back to basics.

Dianna says: The kidnapper left NO fingerprints → so the fingerprint you DO NOT find = the kidnapper.

Challenge: You will find 4 fingerprints among the 5 listed. The one you do NOT find = the culprit.

So regardless of names, we need to figure out which one is NOT found — but since we don’t have the “playing area” image, how can we know?

Wait — perhaps this is a logic puzzle where we must deduce based on what’s presented.

Looking at the bottom row: All five fingerprints are shown with names. So if we were to “find” four of them in the playing area, one would be absent.

But since we don’t have the playing area, maybe the trick is in the text itself.

Another thought: Dianna says “the kidnapper didn’t leave any” — meaning their print won’t be found. So whoever’s print is missing is guilty.

Now, the challenge says: “there are four to be found” — so one is missing.

And then: “The print that isn’t found is the person Sandra states is the true culprit.”

But Sandra hasn’t said anything. Unless... is “Sandra” a red herring? Or is it possible that “Sandra” is referring to herself?

Wait — look at the names again:

Warren, Sandra, Darwin, Dianna, Andrew.

Dianna made the statement. If she’s telling the truth, then the missing print is the culprit.

But if she’s lying, then maybe she’s the culprit — and her print WOULD be found? No — she said the kidnapper didn’t leave any, so if she’s the kidnapper, her print shouldn’t be found.

This is getting confusing.

Perhaps the simplest approach: Since we are told that 4 prints are found, and 1 is not — and the one not found is the culprit — then we need to identify which one is not found.

But without seeing the playing area, how?

Unless — the “hidden fingerprints” are actually hidden IN THE IMAGE ITSELF? Like, maybe some of the prints shown are duplicates or something?

Look at the fingerprints visually:

All five look different — no obvious duplicates.

Wait — perhaps the answer lies in the fact that Dianna is speaking — and she might be implicating someone else.

Another idea: Maybe “Sandra states” is a mistake, and it should be “Dianna states”. That would make sense.

Assuming that, then: The missing print = culprit, per Dianna’s statement.

But still — which one is missing?

Perhaps in the original game or context, players search and find 4 prints — say, Warren, Darwin, Dianna, Andrew — leaving Sandra’s print unfound → so Sandra is the culprit.

Or maybe they find all except Dianna’s — then Dianna is the culprit.

But we need to reason logically.

Let’s consider: Dianna says the kidnapper didn’t leave any prints. So if Dianna is the kidnapper, then her print should not be found. But she’s the one giving the clue — why would she give a clue that points to herself? Unless she’s clever.

Alternatively, if Sandra is the culprit, then her print isn’t found — and the challenge says “the print that isn’t found is the person Sandra states is the true culprit” — which would mean Sandra is stating that she herself is the culprit? That doesn’t make sense.

Wait — perhaps “Sandra states” is meant to be “as stated by Sandra”, but Sandra didn’t state anything. This is likely a wording error.

Given that, I think the intended logic is:

- Dianna’s statement: Missing print = culprit.
- Challenge: Find 4 prints; the missing one is the culprit.
- Therefore, whoever’s print is not among the 4 found is guilty.

Since we don’t have the playing area, but the problem is presented as solvable, perhaps the answer is implied by the setup.

Notice: There are 5 suspects. One is the culprit. Four prints are found. The fifth is not.

In many such puzzles, the speaker is often the culprit — especially if they’re trying to divert attention.

Dianna is the one speaking. She says “check the fingerprints — the kidnapper didn’t leave any”. If she’s the kidnapper, then indeed her print wouldn’t be found — and she’s telling the truth, which makes her seem helpful, but actually she’s revealing the method while being guilty.

That fits.

Moreover, if her print is the one not found, then according to her own rule, she is the culprit.

Also, the challenge says “the print that isn’t found is the person Sandra states is the true culprit” — but if Sandra didn’t state anything, perhaps it’s a trick, and we ignore “Sandra states” as irrelevant or erroneous.

Maybe “Sandra” is a typo for “Dianna”.

I think the most logical conclusion is that Dianna is the culprit, and her fingerprint is the one not found.

Why? Because:

1. She gave the rule: missing print = culprit.
2. If she’s guilty, her print is missing → consistent.
3. She might be trying to appear cooperative while actually framing others or hiding her guilt.

Additionally, in mystery games, the person who gives the clue is sometimes the villain.

So, final deduction: Dianna’s fingerprint is the one not found → Dianna is the culprit.

Final Answer: Dianna