T3B70

The cook did it.

See, here was my reasoning:

Each person had 2 truths and a lie (I <3 that game, by the way, it's usually super obvious which statements are people's lies)

*My thinking in blue.

Examined first: The Duchess/// 
TRUE I didn’t kill the Duke. 
FALSE The gardener killed my husband. 
TRUE I’m not guilty. 
IF the first statement is TRUE, then the third statement must also be true or else the statements would be conflicting. Therefore the second statement is false. The gardener could not have killed the Duke. We go to examine his testimony.

Examined last: The Cook/// 
FALSE It wasn’t me. 
TRUE I have been working here for 27 years. 
TRUE The butler knows who’s done it. 
If we straight up assume that the cook has done it, as we already know, the first statement is FALSE, leaving the other two to be TRUE. We don't care (no offence to the cook) that he has been working here for 27 years, other than the fact that it must be true. The third statement must therefore be true, the butler does know who did it--the cook! We go to CONCLUSION...

Examined third: The Butler/// 
TRUE I am not the murderer. 
FALSE The chambermaid is my witness; we were playing cards in the kitchen last night. 
TRUE The Duke was killed by the cook.
The first statement must be true, because of the gardener's testimony (His/her false statement was that the butler was the murderer). We cannot yet determine which of the other statements are true, YET, so we go to see the chambermaid's testimony.

** After examining chambermaid's testimony:
One of the chambermaid's true statements was that she was not here last night. Thus, this makes the second statement of the butler's false--the chambermaid cannot be his alibi. However, this also renders the third statement true which means the Duke was murdered by the cook. To check his facts, we go to the cook's testimony.

Examined fourth: The Chambermaid/// 
TRUE I didn’t do it. 
TRUE I wasn’t even here last night. 
FALSE The gardener did it. 
We know from the Duchess's and gardener's testimonies that the third statement CANNOT be true. The gardener cannot be the murderer. Therefore, we know that the other two statements are true. The chambermaid was not the committer of the crime (now leaving the butler and cook as the only possible suspects) and she was not here last night. IF she was not here last night... we go back to the butler's testimony.

Examined second: The Gardener/// 
TRUE The Duchess is lying when she says that I did it. 
TRUE I am innocent. 
FALSE The butler is the murderer 
The first statement must be true because of the Duchess's testimony (her false statement was that the gardener did it, so therefore the gardener is not lying when he/she said that the Duchess was lying when she said the gardener did it). IF the first statement is true, then the second statement must also be true. Therefore, only the third statement can be false, or else we get a contradicting testimony. The butler cannot be the murderer. We go to examine his testimony.

Who is the murderer?

CONCLUSION:
The cook is the murderer. Bad cook.

Phew, that took me a long time to jump around and type up. :P

*Post-script: Is it phew or whew? I never really figured out the difference in pronunciation? Unless it's F-EW vs. H-EW? I don't know... I guess either is okay?