Hinterkaifeck

The 1922 murders of Hinterkaifeck are one of Germany´s most mysterious unsolved murder cases.

Hinterkaifeck was the name of a small farmstead outside Groebern, between the Bavarian towns of Ingolstadt and Schrobenhausen (approximately 70 km north of Munich). Here, farmer Andreas Gruber (63) lived with his wife Cäzilia (72) and their widowed daughter Viktoria Gabriel (35) – the official owner of the farm – and her two children Cäzilia (7) and Josef (2). 

The family was rather well-off and well-regarded, though not exactly well-liked. They are said to have kept mostly to themselves. Gruber in particular is described as a brutish, sullen loner. He is said to have beaten and mistreated his children, of whom only Viktoria survived.

His daughter Viktoria was a popular member of the church choir, known for her beautiful voice. It was common knowledge that Gruber had an incestuous relationship with his daughter (something which, while illegal, was not infrequent in rural areas at the time), and actively prevented her from marrying again. His wife apparently suffered from the knowledge, but did little to stop things. A schoolmate of young Cäzilia´s reported in 1984 that Cäzilia was reproached for falling asleep in school on the 31st and related that the night before, there had been a severe argument in the family and her grandmother had stormed out of the house wanting to kill herself. They had searched for her for hours. (Earlier, in 1951, the same witness had stated that it had been Viktoria who they had searched for).

Even though a neighboring farmer, Lorenz S., had officially admitted to being the father of little Josef, it was rumored that the boy was in fact the fruit of the incestuous relationship between his mother and grandfather. Schlittenbauer was not the only local lad who claimed to have been with Viktoria.

The murders

A few days prior to the crime, Andreas Gruber told neighbours about discovering footsteps in the snow leading from the edge of the forest to the farm; however, there were none leading back. He also talked about hearing footsteps in the attic and finding an unfamiliar newspaper on the farm. Furthermore, one of the two existing house keys went missing several days before the murders, but none of this was reported to the police.

Six months earlier, the previous maid had left the farm, claiming that it was haunted; the new maid, Maria Baumgartner, arrived on the farm on 31 March 1922, only a few hours before her death.

Some weeks before the fatal night, Viktoria had withdrawn all her money from her bank account and borrowed some from her half-sister (Gruber was Cäzilia´s second husband), to invest in the farm. A donation of 700 goldmark was left in the confessional of the church. The priest traced it to Viktoria, and she told him it was “for missionary work”.

Exactly what happened on that Friday evening cannot be said for certain.

It is believed that the older couple, as well as their daughter Viktoria and her daughter Cäzilia, were somehow all lured into the barn one by one where they were slaughtered brutally. The perpetrator(s) then went into the house where they killed two-year-old Josef who was sleeping in his cot in his mother’s bedroom, as well as the maid, Maria Baumgartner, in her bed-chamber.

On the following Tuesday, the 4th of April, some neighbours went to the farmstead because none of the inhabitants had been seen for several days, which was rather unusual. The postman had noticed that the mail from the previous Saturday was still where he had left it. Furthermore, young Cäzilia had not turned up for school on Monday, nor had she been there on Saturday. The family also had been absent from church on Sunday, which was unusual, given Viktoria´s position in the choir.

Inspector Georg Reingruber and his colleagues from the Munich Police Department made immense efforts investigating the killings. More than 100 suspects have been questioned through the years, but to no avail. The most recent questioning took place in 1986, but even that was fruitless.  In 2007 the students of the Polizeifachhochschule (Police Academy) in Fürstenfeldbruck got the task to investigate the case once more with modern techniques of criminal investigation. Their final report is kept secret. To this day, many hobby investigators continue to investigate the case.

The day after the discovery, on the 5th of April, court physician Dr. Johann Baptist Aumüller performed the autopsies in the barn. It was established that a pickaxe was the most likely murder weapon. The corpses were beheaded, and the skulls sent to Munich, where  clairvoyants examined them without result. The autopsy also showed that the younger Cäzilia had been alive for several hours after the assault. Lying in the straw, next to the bodies of her grandparents and her mother, she had torn her hair out in tufts. The skulls were never actually returned to the bodies and the entire family has been buried without heads. The traces of the skulls have been lost in history. They very likely were destroyed when the forensic department in Nuremberg burned down during WWII.

The motive

The police first suspected the motive to be robbery, and interrogated several inhabitants from the surrounding villages, as well as travelling craftsmen and vagrants. The robbery theory was, however, abandoned when a large amount of money was found in the house.  Only the paper money was gone, while considerable amounts of gold coins and valuables had been left.

It is believed that the perpetrator(s) remained at the farm for several days – someone had fed the cattle, and eaten food in the kitchen: the neighbours had also seen smoke from the chimney during the weekend – and anyone looking for money would have found it.  But why, if they were not looking for money, would the perpetrators stay there for so long and keep up the appearance that someone was alive?

Whoever did this obviously had some farmers knowledge, and also a farmers´ mind: They did not harm any of the animals, not even the dog (until the very last day) though it must have been a hazard.

The use of the pickaxe as the murder weapon also points towards this: The victims had been hit with precision and a lot of hatred, their heads had been split but their bodies had apparently not been hit. Whoever did this must have been familiar enough with using a pickaxe to do so without thinking.

Whoever did this also must have been known on the farm, as the Grubers´ dog – a Pomeranian, said to be a keen watchdog – was first heard inside the house, but and later seen tied up and healthy, barking like crazy outside the barn by a mechanic who came to the farm on Monday. The dog was found inside the barn, hurt and frightened, by the men who discovered the dead on Tuesday. So the killer was familiar enough to the dog to be able to handle it during the three days he stayed on the farm after the murders.

All of the corpses had been covered. Viktoria, her daughter and her parents had been placed on top of each other in the barn and covered with a door, which in turn was covered with some hay. The maid had been covered with her own bedcloth and little Josef was covered with one of Viktoria´s skirts. This points towards the fact that the killer(s) had some emotional connection to the victims. By covering them up, they tried to hide what they had done, so they did not have to face it.

At some point, the death of Karl Gabriel, Viktoria’s husband who had been reported killed in the French trenches in 1914, was called into question. His body had never been found and two people claimed to have encountered a German-speaking Russian officer after WWII,  who claimed to be “the Hinterkaifeck killer”. A former friend of Karl´s also claimed to have met him in the 1920s. These accounts have been proven wrong and the death of Karl Gabriel seems ascertained enough to discount this theory. Apart from that, Karl Gabriel had planned to leave Viktoria even before going to the war, in 1914. He might have faked his death to be free of her, although this would have been very difficult for a young farmers´ boy in 1914 to accomplish, but why would he return 7 years later and kill the whole family, including young Cäzilia, his own daughter?

From the position of the bodies and their condition, Viktoria was probably the first to die. She was strangled as well as slain, and she was still dressed, as was her mother, whereas Andreas Gruber and little Cäzilia were already in night garb. It is thought that Viktoria was the first to encounter her killer, probably let him in. Maybe an argument erupted (what went on in the barn couldn´t be heard from the living quarters so it wouldn´t have alarmed the others all at once), the first murder happened and led to a killing spree – out of resentment, but also to do away anyone who might know he was there?

Many of those who study this case consider little Josef the key to it all. Why kill him, too? Maybe because he knew and recognized the killer? At two years, he would have been able to say something like “uncle xxx was here”, even if he might not have understood everything else that went on.

When little Josef was born, Viktoria claimed for Lorenz S. to be the father. He denied it and reported Viktoria and her father to the police for incest. On Viktoria´s request, probably garnished with the hint of a chance to marry the wealthy widow, S. withdrew his report later and confirmed to be the father. He had to pay an alimony of several thousand marks to the Grubers, which Viktoria gave him. With this down payment, it was agreed that he was free of any responsibility and Andreas Gruber was made the child´s guardian. In fact, this kind of deal was illegal even then, and a recent TV documentary on the case revealed that apparentlyshortly before she was killed, Viktoria planned to sue Schlittenbauer for alimony payments. 

According to one source, Andreas Gruber was said to have been waiting for an important letter, though we do not know what that letter was supposed to contain, nor who it was from, or even if this was indeed the case. If the killer was waiting for a letter to arrive (and, presumably, destroy) it would at least explain why he stayed on the farm for days after the murder. But if the letter was in connection with Viktoria´s alimony suit, wouldn´t the lawyer have come forth? After all, the murders made the headlines all over the country.

Lorenz S. had remarried at that point. His first child with his new wife had died and been buried only a few days before the murder. Did the notion of having to pay for a child that he couldn´t be sure was his while his own child had not lived trigger something terrible…?

S. was obviously familiar with the Grubers´ farmstead. He was one of the men who went to investigate after the family had not been seen for days and discovered the corpses in the barn.  He had apparently no problem handling them, pulling those lying on top of each other apart. The other two told him not to disturb anything but he said he had to make sure where “his boy” was. 

According to one of the other two men, S. “disturbed everything there was to disturb” and displayed a surprising familiarity with the farm: He went into the house from the barn (both buildings were interconnected) and unlocked the front door from the inside. (Was the key in the lock or was he in possession of the key that had been missed days before?)  He knew that the door to the maid´s room had to be opened in an unusal way, by lifting the handle instead of pressing it down. But if he had been the perpetrator, he would have spent the previous days on the farm and would have had enough time to cover his tracks. He would have had no need to mess with the crime site.

S. stayed on the farm until the police arrived, feeding the cattle. He even had a meal there himself. Just like the unknown perpetrator, he was apparently not disturbed by the presence of the corpses. Even though people were a bit more familiar with death and dead people back then, the other two men were  rather shaky seeing the slain victims.  On the other hand, he might have acted “on auto-pilot” in a state of emergency/shock, like someone who is witness to a severe accident and calmly does everything that needs to be done, shock not setting in until much later.

In spite of his apparent worry about “his boy”, he does not seem to have minded the decease of the family a lot: Years later, he said during an interrogation that the Lord had his hand in the right place when this happened, these were bad people. He did not exclude the two children.

The dog behaved in an unusual way towards S. when they found the corpses. He stayed in his vicinity and barked at him. S. claimed this was because he had gotten blood from the corpses on his shoes.

S. had no alibi for the night of the murders. According to his family, he spent the night at their barn to watch out for burglars after having heard of Gruber´s findings. But  S. was suffering from asthma, so how likely is it for him to have slept in the barn? On the other hand, how likely is it for him to slay six people in a very short time?

S. lived only 350 metres away from Hinterkaifeck, so he could have easily gone over there  and back without his absence being noticed. And years later, when the murders were discussed in the local pub, S. repeatedly talked in the first person when speculating about how the killer may have gone about and referred to him as “I”.

While some of S.´s behaviour makes him look suspicious, a lot of open questions remain. And S. is by no means the only suspect. To this day, a lot has been speculated  about, but no killer has been identified for certain, nothing has been proven.

And so the Hinterkaifeck murders leave us with many questions.

More

More information, pictures and documents:

www.hinterkaifeck.net, www.hinterkaifeck-mord.de (German)

Peter Leuschner wrote a book on the case which has had three (two revised) editions by now (1987, 2007, 2009).

Kurt Hieber made two TV documentaries (1991, 2009).

Movies:

Kaifeck Murder (Hinter Kaifeck), D 2009 > a mystery-horror movie based on the case

Tannoed, D 2009 > movie adaptation of the novel of the same name

Novels:

Andrea Maria Schenkel, The Murder Farm (dt.: Tannoed, 2007).   Transfers the case into the 1950s.

 

Published in: on November 23, 2009 at 7:09 pm  Comments (4)  

The URI to TrackBack this entry is: http://armchairdetective.wordpress.com/2009/11/23/hinterkaifeck/trackback/

RSS feed for comments on this post.

4 CommentsLeave a comment

  1. Isn’t it a bit strange that instead of using her last strength to try to escape the barn and get help, little Cäzilia tore out her hair before she died? A child has strong instincts to flee from dangerous situations (I’m a former abused child, so I know). Also, tearing out one’s hair requires strength – I couldn’t get a hold of that much hair and remove it without much pain and I’m 19 at the moment. I think she was the first person to get lured into the barn, but the last to be killed.

    The murderer was obviously filled with hatred, either towards the family or humanity as a whole, as he must have stayed in the barn and watched them die; this is the only explanation I can think of as to why Cäzilia hadn’t tried to flee – he was in her way. However, he can’t have been a standard psychopath. One of the most common signs of one of those is cruelty to animals, and the opposite seems to be the case here. The fact that he stayed there after the killings may indicate that he had some personal connection to the farm; he didn’t want the animals to suffer, even though it would have been safer to get away as soon as possible.

    He would probably be either very disorganized or very obsessed with something that had recently happened in Germany – he was careless enough to leave newspapers lying around the farm for the inhabitants to find. Odds are that he was obsessed rather than disorganized, as planning a crime would usually take up more than enough time if you didn’t take time to read the papers.

    So what could he have been obsessed with? Assuming that the murder took place March 31st, this was 16 days before the Treaty of Rapallo, an agreement between Germany and Russia to cooperate and “bury the hatchet” (no pun intended). If this was of interest to the murderer, we can almost safely assume that he was a German patriot, believed in the “stab-in-the-back myth” and found it unfair that Germany had lost the first World War – an important reason why the Nazis gradually gained power between the wars. The killer was a Nazi sympathizer, and it doesn’t seem too unlikely that Andreas Gruber was as well; he seems to me like a bitter and dispassionate man. But, as I heard on a mystery series not long ago, “bitterness is a paralytic”, and I don’t think Andreas Gruber was much of a doer. Thus, Mr. X could be angry with him for “betraying the cause”.

    Then there’s the new farm hand, Maria Baumgartner. According to some websites, Baumgartner might be a Jewish name, and at any rate, Maria is a Jewish name. If Maria Baumgartner was Jewish, Mr. X would have yet another reason to hate the Grubers – what kind of Nazi would employ a Jew? But if this was the case, Mr. X must have known about their hiring her before she arrived. This leads me to think that he must have been close to the family. But he was also methodical enough and, as I said, not a total psychopath, so he might be a “mission killer”. This theory would also explain why Baumgartner and Josef were murdered too – she was Jewish, and he was a possible witness. Statistically, young people are more likely to fiercely believe in a cause than older ones.

    All in all, if I was a cop in Germany 91 years ago, I would look for a solitary man from a rural area, no older than 35 and muscular, unlikely to have a family or to ever have been in love, probably from a somewhat wealthy family and possibly with a couple of years in Munich behind him, usually quiet and even-tempered but not when political issues were brought up, most likely tall and with a background in agriculture, weak-willed, and with ties to the area or maybe even the farm itself. There’s also the possibility that he was the metal man in a team of two, and that the other person (maybe someone he had met and trusted in Munich – a Nazi politician perhaps?) was the brain behind it all.

    But I’m not Sherlock Holmes, so never mind my ramblings ^^’

  2. [...] For more reading on this case, check out http://armchairdetective.wordpress.com/2009/11/23/hinterkaifeck/ [...]

  3. Thanks you for posting this, very interesting.

    • *Thank


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

%d bloggers like this: