Get Your Weekly Digest

Receive the best podcast summaries and insights delivered to your inbox every week.

We respect your privacy. Unsubscribe anytime.

Stuff You Should Know

SYSK's Fall True Crime Playlist: The Hinterkaifeck Axe Murders

Published September 26, 2025
View Show Notes

About This Episode

Hosts Josh Clark and Charles W. "Chuck" Bryant recount the 1922 Hinterkaifeck axe murders in rural Bavaria, where six members of the Gruber household, including a new maid, were brutally killed on their isolated farm. They walk through the eerie lead-up of strange noises and footprints, the grisly discovery and forensic details, and the major suspects, especially neighbor Lorenz Schlittenbauer, while discussing why the case remains officially unsolved. The episode ends with lighter tangents about Steve Guttenberg and a listener mail story about a formative hunting experience.

Topics Covered

True crime Forensic investigation Police work and detective work Ghosts and paranormal experiences Paranormal investigation Murder trials Urban legends Nazism and World War II Halloween

Disclaimer: We provide independent summaries of podcasts and are not affiliated with or endorsed in any way by any podcast or creator. All podcast names and content are the property of their respective owners. The views and opinions expressed within the podcasts belong solely to the original hosts and guests and do not reflect the views or positions of Summapod.

Quick Takeaways

  • The Hinterkaifeck murders involved six victims from the Gruber family and their new maid, all killed with a matic (a type of pickaxe) on an isolated Bavarian farm in 1922.
  • In the days before the murders, the family experienced unexplained footsteps, missing keys, a strange newspaper, and noises in the attic, following a maid who had quit claiming the house was haunted.
  • Evidence suggested the killer remained on the farm for several days after the murders, feeding the animals, maintaining fires, and using the house.
  • Neighbor Lorenz Schlittenbauer emerged as the main suspect due to a paternity dispute, his behavior at the crime scene, and his intimate knowledge of the property, but no hard proof ever surfaced.
  • Later theories involving Victoria's supposedly dead husband or supernatural forces are considered weak compared to the likely but unprovable human culprit.
  • A 2007 review by a German police academy concluded they had a prime suspect but declined to name him publicly because relatives are still alive.
  • The episode illustrates how poor evidence preservation and limited forensics in 1922 made the case effectively unsolvable.
  • The listener mail segment highlights how directly confronting animal suffering can permanently change someone's attitude toward hunting and cruelty.

Podcast Notes

Fall true crime playlist introduction and Halloween framing

Hosts introduce the fall true crime playlist concept

They welcome listeners to a new fall playlist featuring some of their best true crime episodes[0:59]
Mention that they have many true crime episodes and had to leave some "all-time greats" out because they were already released as selects[1:06]
They encourage listeners who like true crime to explore other episodes such as the Yuba County Five, the body on Somerton Beach, the missing Sodder children, and 10 Dumb Criminals[1:15]
They set up the first playlist episode as a grisly, unsolved 1922 Bavarian farm murder case with many strange twists[1:28]

Stuff You Should Know episode intro and Halloween context

SYSK show opening and host introductions

Standard SYSK intro: "Welcome to Stuff You Should Know, from HowStuffWorks.com"[1:42]
Hosts identify themselves as Josh Clark with Charles W. "Chuck" Bryant and producer Jerry[1:58]

Positioning as a Halloween-related episode

Josh calls it a bonus Halloween episode and notes a regular ad-free Halloween show is still coming on Halloween[2:12]
They reference their traditional Halloween reading episode that Jerry produces[2:22]
Chuck suggested, since it was close to Halloween weekend, that they tell the story of an axe-murdered family[2:31]
They briefly joke about whether mentioning an axe-murdered family spoils anything, concluding they would have gotten there anyway[2:49]

German and Chinese pronunciation banter

Revisiting mispronunciation of a previous Chinese topic

They mention having previously mispronounced a Chinese term (Dixia Chang), joking about how the internet misled them[3:39]
Josh notes they got everything else right except that pronunciation, now corrected to something like "Dixia Chung"[3:44]

Practicing German names and terms for the episode

They practice pronouncing "Hinterkaifeck" and Chuck tests his German, saying his German is rusty but he thinks he has most of them[3:59]
Josh anticipates stumbling on at least one German word, and Chuck jokes about playing a boing sound when it happens[4:11]
Chuck lightly corrects Josh's pronunciation of German place names like Ingolstadt (suggesting -statt instead of -stott)[4:37]

Setting the scene: Bavaria, Kaifeck, and the Hinterkaifeck farm

Geographic setting in Bavaria

They explain that Hinterkaifeck was in Bavaria, between the towns of Ingolstadt and Schrobenhausen[4:29]
They note that Hinterkaifeck was closer to Weidhofen and that Kaifeck was a tiny village[5:03]

Explanation of the farm name and layout

Kaifeck was the nearby village, while Hinterkaifeck was the name of the farm located outside the village[5:22]
Chuck likens it to what Americans would call a ranch or even a dude ranch, though it was just a working farm[5:13]
They joke that the farm being in the "hinterlands" explains the name Hinterkaifeck[5:27]

The Gruber family: members, names, and reputation

Family composition and ages

The farm was occupied by the Gruber family: Andreas Gruber (father), his wife, their adult daughter Victoria, and two grandchildren[5:43]
They specify that Victoria was 35 and widowed at the time of the events in 1922[7:49]
The grandchildren were an older granddaughter and a two-year-old boy, Josef, who was Victoria's son[6:51]

German name pronunciations and umlaut discussion

Josh struggles with pronouncing Andreas's wife's name, written as "Cäzilia", and Chuck explains the initial C is pronounced like "ts" in German[6:01]
• Chuck suggests it would be pronounced something like "Tzatzilia" or "Tzilia", joking that it sounds Italian
They distinguish between the grandmother Cäzilia and the granddaughter with an umlaut over the name, which changes pronunciation slightly[7:30]
• Chuck suggests the granddaughter's name with umlaut would be something like "Tötsilia" and notes both names being so similar is unusual

Social status and community perception of the Gruber family

Although the Grubers were wealthy and treated with respect appropriate to their station, they were very much disliked in the area[8:00]
Andreas was not originally from the area, was considered unfriendly and a loner, and was reportedly very abusive to his wife and children[8:29]
Josh notes that many people at the time died from things like the flu, so deaths of other children may not necessarily indicate foul play[9:00]

Rumors of incest and paternity of Josef

There was a strong local rumor that two-year-old Josef was the product of an incestuous relationship between Victoria and her father Andreas[9:22]
Chuck notes this could be typical small-town 1920s rumor-mongering and that he is not sure he believes it, though he acknowledges Andreas's controlling and possibly obsessive behavior toward Victoria[9:29]
They mention another man in town (later identified as neighbor Lorenz) who at one point claimed to be Josef's father but later denied it, especially when alimony obligations were raised[10:06]
Victoria was generally more liked than her parents; she sang in the church choir and this was likely her main regular social outlet[10:27]

Sources and the mysterious universe article

Primary written source for the case

They cite a detailed article on mysteriousuniverse.org as the main starting point for their research on the case[10:40]
They note mysteriousuniverse.org is not their usual research source but remark that the article is good and cross-checks well with other sources[10:52]

Ominous prelude: hauntings, footprints, and strange occurrences

First maid quits, claiming the house is haunted

Some months before the murders, the family's maid abruptly quit, saying the house was haunted[11:17]
She reported hearing weird noises in the attic and strange sounds and footsteps throughout the house[11:23]
The maid left quickly enough that the family described her as mentally disturbed, possibly to deflect attention from claims of a haunted house[11:38]

Snowstorm footprints leading only to the house

In March 1922, after a snowstorm, Andreas inspected the property for damage and found a single set of footprints in the snow leading to the house but none leading away[12:51]
Josh characterizes this as "super creepy" because there was no visible sign that whoever came had left[11:31]
Andreas conducted a thorough search of the house, barn, and outbuildings but found no intruder and no tracks leading away[13:27]

Tampered tool shed lock and missing keys

During his search, Andreas noticed that the padlock on the separate tool shed had scratch marks indicating someone had tried to break or pick it[12:51]
He mentioned this lock tampering to neighbors as something that disturbed him[13:00]
Around the same month, a set of keys went missing from the household, which became more ominous in the context of other events[16:32]

Strange newspaper appears on the porch

The family found an unexpected and unexplained newspaper on the porch; it was described as a "strange newspaper" in accounts[16:57]
Josh notes that sources do not clarify whether it was strange because of its origin, date, or because they did not subscribe to it; it was simply not a paper they expected to see there[17:27]

Noises in the attic and escalating dread

In the days just before the murders, Andreas himself began to hear the same kind of unexplained footsteps in the attic that the earlier maid had described[17:46]
Josh characterizes this as the start of a "season of dread" at Hinterkaifeck: maid leaves for ghostly noises, then footprints, tampered lock, missing keys, strange newspaper, and attic sounds[18:06]
Chuck jokes about the idea of someone using the "Shining" strategy of doubling back in their own footprints to cover tracks, referencing Danny from the film[16:02]

Murders and discovery of the bodies

Arrival of new maid and last confirmed day alive

On March 31, 1922, a new maid, confirmed as Maria Baumgartner, arrived to start work at the farm[21:54]
The hosts note ominously that her first day on the job would prove to be fatally bad for her[22:09]
Neighbors later concluded that March 31 was the last day anyone could say for sure they had seen any of the Gruber family alive[22:48]

Absences noticed and neighbors investigate

By April 4, several days later, people noticed that young Cäzilia had not been in school, which was unusual[23:00]
Victoria's absence from church and the choir was also highly unusual, as she never missed[23:10]
Mail had been piling up at the post office for the family, adding to neighbors' concerns[23:25]
Reluctant neighbors debated whether to check on the disliked family but decided it was the neighborly thing to do[23:55]

Initial impressions at the farm and barking dog

A small search party found the farm eerily quiet with no visible signs of life[24:06]
The Grubers' Pomeranian dog was barking aggressively but was tied up in the barn rather than in the house where it normally stayed[24:32]
The farm animals appeared to have been fed and cared for recently, which raised questions about how long the family had been absent[24:06]

Grisly discovery of bodies in the barn and house

Looking deeper into the barn, neighbors discovered multiple bodies that had been bludgeoned to death and stacked on top of one another[25:05]
Four victims-Andreas, his wife Cäzilia, their daughter Victoria, and granddaughter Cäzilia-were found in the barn under hay[25:11]
• The hosts mention photographs exist of the barn scene showing partially covered bodies, warning they are graphic
Inside the house, two-year-old Josef was found in Victoria's bedroom, bludgeoned to death[26:02]
New maid Maria was found dead in her bed in her room, also killed by blows to the head[26:02]
All six victims had been covered after death, either with hay (in the barn) or with sheets or clothing in the house[26:36]

Autopsy findings and murder weapon identification

On April 5, Dr. Johann AumĂĽller conducted autopsies in the barn and concluded that a matic (a type of pickaxe) had been used as the murder weapon[26:55]
The matic had a pick side and a blunt, wide end; blows were largely concentrated on victims' heads and faces[27:20]
The actual murder weapon was not physically found until about a year later, but the doctor had correctly deduced what it was[27:06]
Autopsy revealed that young Cäzilia had tufts of her own hair clenched in her fists, suggesting she survived for hours after the attack and pulled out her hair in distress[27:40]
Victoria showed signs of strangulation, but the cause of death was determined to be head trauma like the others[27:58]
Apart from Cäzilia's prolonged suffering, the others appear to have died almost immediately from their injuries[28:05]

Timing of murders and sequence of luring victims

Clothing suggested the attack occurred in the evening: some victims were in regular clothes (Victoria and granddaughter) and others in bedclothes[28:10]
Investigators inferred family members were likely lured one by one out to the barn, since there were no signs of a group struggle inside the house[28:29]
• Hosts compare it to a Scooby-Doo scenario where people go out to investigate and are picked off sequentially

Evidence someone stayed on the farm after the murders

Signs of ongoing activity at the farm over the weekend

Although the murders occurred on March 31, neighbors reported seeing smoke from the chimney throughout the weekend that followed[29:19]
The livestock were fed and appeared well cared for, inconsistent with the family having been dead for four full days[29:27]
Evidence inside the house indicated someone had eaten meals there and slept in the bed after the estimated time of death[29:42]
The dog had been tied up (possibly after initially running free) and may have had minor injuries according to some accounts, but was ultimately alive and not severely harmed[29:55]

Possibility that killer was on site before and after

The hosts emphasize how disturbing it is that someone likely stayed at the farm, living there for days after killing the family[30:10]
They also point out the even more chilling possibility that the killer had been hiding there beforehand (as suggested by attic noises and footprints), then stayed several days after[30:25]

Investigation, motives, and rejection of simple robbery

Initial robbery hypothesis and contradictions

Police initially considered a vagrant or burglar who killed for money and robbed the family[30:10]
Some cash was missing from the bodies, but substantial valuables such as jewelry, gold coins, and other money in the house were untouched[31:04]
Given that the killer appears to have had several days in the house, it made little sense that valuable items would be left behind if robbery was the main motive[31:47]
They note Victoria had recently emptied her bank account, leaving a church donation but with a significant remaining sum unaccounted for, which was never found[31:28]
Based on these contradictions, investigators concluded robbery was unlikely to be the primary motive[31:47]

Main suspect: neighbor Lorenz Schlittenbauer

Relationship to Victoria and paternity dispute

Neighbor Lorenz Schlittenbauer, who lived about 350 meters away, was a suitor of Victoria and was widely discussed as a key suspect[33:55]
Victoria claimed he was Josef's father, and he at one point acknowledged paternity before later denying it when payment obligations became clear[33:36]
Victoria was preparing to sue him for paternity and support when the murders occurred, creating a possible motive[34:42]

Suspicious behavior at the crime scene

Lorenz was part of the original search party that discovered the bodies at Hinterkaifeck, which aligns with the pattern of criminals inserting themselves into investigations[36:00]
He disturbed the crime scene extensively, unstacking bodies and moving things around, seemingly unfazed while other men were shaken[36:19]
• A companion later said Lorenz "disturbed everything there was to disturb" at the scene
He accessed the house from the barn, suggesting knowledge of internal connections, and unlocked the front door from inside, raising questions about whether he had or knew about a key[36:53]
He went straight to the maid's room and lifted the door handle in an unusual way known to people familiar with the house, which could indicate prior intimate knowledge[36:53]
The Gruber dog reportedly reacted strongly when he was around, which some interpreted as recognition of the killer, though the hosts caution this may be local folklore[37:07]
When questioned about his behavior at the barn, Lorenz said he was looking for his son, referring to Josef, despite Josef being found inside the house[37:35]

Alibi, proximity, and plausibility

Lorenz's family provided an alibi that he spent the night in their barn guarding against burglars, allegedly due to concerns about strange activity, even though he supposedly had asthma[38:29]
The hosts find the idea of an asthmatic voluntarily sleeping in a barn questionable and the alibi weak[38:33]
At only about 350 meters away, Lorenz could have easily traveled back and forth to the Gruber farm without arousing suspicion at home[39:02]
Josh notes that even though there was a single set of footprints in the snow, Lorenz could have come and gone by reusing his own tracks or covering his movements, similar to the "Shining" technique discussed earlier[39:43]
Years later, Lorenz was quoted as saying God did the right thing with the family and that they deserved what happened, without exempting Josef, which the hosts find chilling and incriminating in tone[46:18]

Hosts' evaluation of the case against Lorenz

Chuck states plainly that, in his view, everything points to Lorenz as the killer, especially the familiarity with the house, his actions at the scene, and his motive involving the paternity suit[45:07]
They note that staying at the crime scene for days to care for animals and maintain the property is more consistent with a nearby neighbor feeling safe than with an unknown burglar[46:58]
Josh acknowledges that while it probably was Lorenz, there was no hard physical evidence, and much evidence was lost or never collected due to the era's limited forensics[47:10]

Alternative suspects and paranormal theories

Theory involving Victoria's husband, Karl Gabriel

Victoria's husband, Karl Gabriel, had reportedly died in World War I in the trenches, but his body was never returned, leading to speculation he might have survived[41:23]
One theory held that Karl faked his death to escape the marriage, then later returned, learned of the alleged incest and Josef's origins, snapped, and killed the family[42:04]
The hosts regard this as an implausible sequence: faking death to leave, then coming back years later to kill everyone after having already escaped[43:14]
Police later interviewed men who had served with Karl and apparently witnessed his death, convincing investigators he truly had died in battle[44:00]
There was also a story about a German-speaking Russian soldier in World War II claiming to be the Hinterkaifeck killer, whom some tried to link to Karl, but this remained unsubstantiated[42:46]

Paranormal explanations and clairvoyant involvement

Given the ghost stories, footsteps, strange newspaper, and one-way footprints, some people proposed supernatural explanations for the murders[44:58]
Josh dismisses such theories as able to "explain everything" but therefore not compelling; they prefer human explanations[43:56]
The Munich police had the victims decapitated, sent their skulls for forensic examination, and even had a clairvoyant handle them to seek leads[45:22]
The clairvoyant provided no useful information, and the skulls were eventually stored in Nuremberg, where they were later lost, likely when a building was destroyed during World War II bombing[44:42]

Later investigations and enduring mystery

Original investigation limitations

Police interviewed over 100 suspects over the years, including Lorenz, but lacked modern forensic tools to definitively tie anyone to the crime[46:02]
This was 1922, before many forensic techniques were developed or widely implemented, and much evidence was poorly preserved or lost[47:10]

2007 Police Academy cold case review

In 2007, students from the FĂĽrstenfeldbruck Police Academy in Munich reviewed the Hinterkaifeck case as a training exercise[47:34]
The students concluded they believed they knew who had committed the murders, but said the case was unsolvable in court terms due to lack of evidence[48:06]
Out of respect for living relatives, they refused to publicly name their suspected killer[48:14]
Josh infers that this unnamed suspect is almost certainly the same neighbor widely suspected-implicitly, Lorenz Schlittenbauer[48:22]
They remark that the case is enormously famous in Germany, akin to a national Jack the Ripper story that will likely never be conclusively solved[47:58]

Lighthearted tangent: Police Academy joke, Steve Guttenberg, and Party Down

Police Academy film references

Josh jokingly refers to the FĂĽrstenfeldbruck Police Academy as the "Gutenberg Police Academy" and riffs on the Police Academy movies[47:34]

Discussion of Steve Guttenberg and TV show Party Down

They note that actor Steve Guttenberg follows the show on Twitter[48:36]
Chuck mentions a Sharknado-like movie in which Steve Guttenberg appears with the Police Academy "guy who does voices" (Michael Winslow)[48:30]
Chuck praises Guttenberg's guest appearance on the TV series Party Down, describing an episode where cater-waiters accidentally host a party at his house after his real party was held earlier[49:12]
He describes Guttenberg in that episode as generous, fun, and doing scene work with the characters, reinforcing the impression that Guttenberg seems like an awesome person[49:07]

Listener shout-out and listener mail segment

Special thanks to listeners who helped Jerry

They briefly thank listeners Margaret and Mike in Jacksonville, Florida, for stepping forward to help producer Jerry in a significant way, without providing details[50:56]

Listener mail: formative squirrel hunting story

A listener named Steven writes about listening to the Polar Bears episode and reacting to Chuck's story about shooting a squirrel as a youth[51:20]
Steven recounts, at age 13, going squirrel hunting with his cousin using a pellet gun, with grandparents' condition that they must skin and eat any animal they killed[51:14]
He shot a squirrel that fell from a tree but did not die; it made an awful noise he hopes never to hear again[52:12]
Unable to finish the animal himself, he handed the gun to his cousin to deliver the second, fatal shot[52:08]
They followed through on their promise to skin and eat the squirrel, but the experience so disturbed Steven that he never again wanted to kill an animal for sport[52:30]
He concludes that although he had always loved animals, this experience permanently turned him away from hunting[52:32]

Closing remarks and contact info

Josh notes that if listeners want to know more about Hinterkaifeck, they can look up other sources and that Stuff You Missed in History Class also has an episode on it[49:32]
They invite listeners to send in their own stories (jokingly saying "horrible story" and then half-regretting the phrasing) via Twitter, Facebook, email, and the SYSK website[53:34]

Lessons Learned

Actionable insights and wisdom you can apply to your business, career, and personal life.

1

In complex, disturbing situations, the most compelling explanation is often a human one rooted in motive and opportunity rather than a supernatural story that conveniently explains everything.

Reflection Questions:

  • • When I encounter something unsettling or confusing, do I tend to reach for fantastical explanations before fully examining the human factors at play?
  • • How might carefully listing motives, opportunities, and constraints in a current problem help me separate plausible explanations from dramatic but unlikely ones?
  • • What is one situation in my life right now where I could deliberately set aside the "wild" explanation and systematically test the more mundane possibilities first?
2

The quality of an investigation-and of any decision-depends heavily on the evidence you preserve and the rigor of your process, not just on how clever your theories are.

Reflection Questions:

  • • In what areas of my work or life am I making decisions with "1922-level" information, relying on hunches rather than documented facts?
  • • How could I improve my personal or professional record-keeping so that future me (or others) can make better decisions based on what actually happened?
  • • What is one decision I'm currently facing where I should pause and gather more reliable data before drawing conclusions?
3

Behavior that seems blatantly incriminating or suspicious can be informative, but without corroborating evidence it remains circumstantial and must be interpreted with caution.

Reflection Questions:

  • • Where in my life have I assumed someone's guilt or intent based mainly on how something "looked" rather than on verifiable facts?
  • • How could I build a habit of explicitly separating observations (what I see) from interpretations (what I think it means) in tense situations?
  • • What is one current conflict or misunderstanding where I could revisit the raw facts and see if my judgment changes when I strip out assumptions?
4

Isolation and secrecy can allow harmful dynamics-like abuse, coercion, or festering resentments-to persist unchecked, while regular contact with a broader community creates more opportunities for intervention.

Reflection Questions:

  • • Are there areas of my life or people I know that are so isolated or private that warning signs might go unnoticed?
  • • How might I intentionally strengthen a sense of community or connection in one part of my life to reduce the risk of unhealthy dynamics taking root?
  • • What is one small, practical action I could take this month to check in on someone who might be more isolated than they appear?
5

Directly confronting the consequences of your actions-like witnessing an animal's suffering-can provoke deep ethical reflection and permanently reshape your behavior.

Reflection Questions:

  • • When have I seen the real-world impact of one of my choices in a way that changed how I behaved afterward?
  • • How could I more deliberately expose myself to the tangible outcomes (positive or negative) of my decisions instead of keeping them abstract?
  • • What is one habit I have now that might change if I fully faced its downstream effects on other people, animals, or the environment?

Episode Summary - Notes by Morgan

SYSK's Fall True Crime Playlist: The Hinterkaifeck Axe Murders
0:00 0:00