Talk:Kaspar Hauser

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Biography (Rated C-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
WikiProject Germany (Rated C-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Germany, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Germany on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
Checklist icon
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.


New information in German Television ZDF:,1872,2026873,00.html and,1872,2027199,00.html


For those not reading German, this essentially states the following: [1] six specimens of presumably more certain provenance than the bloodstain on Kaspar Hauser's underpants, including specimens taken from his hair and hat and trousers, were genetically sequenced. All six specimens matched one another exactly. [2] they were compared with the sequence from the blood on the underpants and did not match. [3] but on this basis it is premature to state that Kaspar Hauser either was or was not a descendant of the House of Baden. (editorial comment: but the DNA evidence would seem to argue against it, we need to see details on the exact mismatches). [4] the article proposes that the results should be compared with the sequence from a specimen from "Astrid von Medinger" ( who is presumably the late Astrid von Zallinger-Stillendorf who married Wilhelm Michael von Medinger in 1982, and who is decended from Stephanie de Beauharnais, who would have been Kaspar Hauser's mother if indeed he had been the hereditary prince of Baden, as shown below) (presumably this would be mtDNA on the basis of the second descent shown below). - it does not seem that this analysis has been performed (?)

(1) Karl Ludwig Friedrich of Baden (1786 - 1818)
& Stephanie de Beauharnais (1789 - 1860)
  (2) Josephine of Baden (1813 - 1900)
  & Karl Anton von Hohenzollern (1811 - 1885)
    (3) Leopold of Hohenzollern (1835 - 1905)
    & Antonia of Portugal (1845 - 1913)
      (4) Karl Anton von Hohenzollern-Sigmaringen (1868 - 1919)
      & Josephine of Belgium (1872 - 1958)
        (5) Marie Antoinette von Hohenzollern (1896 - 1965)
        & Egon Eyrl von und zu Waldgries und Liebenaich (1892 - 1981)
          (6) Stephanie Eyrl von und zu Waldgries und Liebenaich (1928 - 1998)
          & Josef von Zallinger-Stillendorf (1920 - )
            (7) Astrid von Zallinger-Stillendorf (1954 - 2002)
            & Wilhelm Michael von Medinger (1945 - )
    (3) Marie of Hohenzollern (1845 - 1912)
    & Philippe of Flanders (1837 - 1905)
      (4) Josephine of Belgium (1872 - 1958)
      & Karl Anton von Hohenzollern-Sigmaringen (1868 - 1919)
        (5) Marie Antoinette von Hohenzollern (1896 - 1965)
        & Egon Eyrl von und zu Waldgries und Liebenaich (1892 - 1981)
          (6) Stephanie Eyrl von und zu Waldgries und Liebenaich (1928 - 1998)
          & Josef von Zallinger-Stillendorf (1920 - )
            (7) Astrid von Zallinger-Stillendorf (1954 - 2002)
            & Wilhelm Michael von Medinger (1945 - )

-- Someone else 18:42, 9 Sep 2003 (EDT) ---

Astrid von Zallinger-Stillendorf = Astrid von Medinger, died in 2002 one week before the film started in December 2002. Why? But I know that she had children (two girls). This analysis with Kaspar Hauser has been performed to 95%, but not 100%. Why? mtDNA-Variation? You can buy the film by ZDF (last 10 minutes) and by

Out of different sources altogether six samples are taken: Hat and trousers Kaspar Hauser's and of its hair curls, partially from the private deduction of the Ansbacher chief presiding judge Feuerbach. The analysis lasts long, the results in the laboratory is for safety's sake several times examined. The genetic code is in all six samples the same. The DNA evidence would seem to argue not (!) against it that Kaspar Hauser was a descendant of the House of Baden. Dietmar ---

Pro-homeopathic tractate removed[edit]

I removed this part, which is effectively pro-homepathic POV and mostly irrelevant to the article. It is also possibly a copyvio but google search pointed only to restricted pages. - Skysmith 12:33, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

"Perhaps the most remarkable example of extreme sensitiveness to medicines is the case of the mysterious and unfortunate Kaspar Hauser, who was found by the police aimlessly wandering about the streets of Nuremberg in the spring of 1828. Dr. Dudgeon has told his story in the Homœopathic World, of October, 1897. From this we learn that he was placed under the care of Professor Daumer who taught him to speak, and gradually elicited from him that he had hitherto lived in a dark, underground cellar, had been fed on black bread and water, and had been deprived of all intercourse with his follow-creatures. At first he had no more intelligence than a baby ; but he learned rapidly. For a long time he was painfully affected by bright light and loud noises. He could distinguish colours in the dark, and felt acutely the slightest blow or touch. Perfumes would bring on convulsive attacks. For long he would not eat anything but black bread on which he had been reared. He was very subject on convulsive attacks, and become seriously ill. In his illness he was under the care of Dr. Preu's article -published in the eleventh volume of the Archiv für die homœopatische Heilkunst- that Dr. Dudgeon's account is taken. Kaspar Hauser was sensitive in many ways. His vision was so acute that he could the berries on a bunch of elderberries at a distance of one hundred paces. He could distinguish colours in total darkness, and he saw best in twilight. He was clairvoyant, and had many premonitions. He foretold his attempted assassination of the 17th of October, 1829. (He was actually assassinated a few months later.)

The special interest to homœopathists in the historic case of Kaspar Hauser lies in the fact that he exemplifies a sensitiveness to remedies which occurs in many persons to a degree only somewhat less exaggerated than his. And the reason I here refer to the case is to show that strength of dose, in the allopathic sense, he not necessarily anything to do with either the causation or the cure of conditions.

An attempt is sometimes made to explain homœopathic action on the hypothesis that remedies "have opposite effects in large and small doses," and that, consequently, homœopathic remedies cure in small doses what they cause in large ones.

This argument is very specious on the face of it, but cases like that of Kaspar Hauser upset it entirely. For the remedies were all given to him in more or less infinitesimal form, and yet they produced not only curative but pathogenetic or disease symptoms, and it was not necessary for him even to take the remedy-olfaction was quite sufficient to set up their action. The 30th centesimal potency of Hahnemann represents one decillional part of the original substance. Understanding this, let us take one or two examples of the action of remedies on this youth. I quote Dr. Dudgeon's account :-

"Smelling at the 30th dilution of Sepia caused a great number of the symptoms recorded by Hahnemann and some others. The voice became rough, as from catarrh. Speech was slow ; gait unsteady. In the afternoon a febrile attack like that recorded in the pathogenesis of Sepia. Sudden, burning eruption on the neck that declined towards evening. Face very red, veins of arms and hands distended. When walking in the evening felt as though ants crawled up his legs to the pit of the stomach, when he felt pressure on the chest ; profuse sweat, pain in the limbs. The febrile attack lasted an hour, and ended with a violent rigor. Great prostration next day, pressure in the forehead. In bed, before falling asleep, tearing pains in joints and other parts of the body. Night-sweet so profuse he had to change his night-shirt. Second day, in evening, ringing like a bell in right ear, with headache ; then he felt as if a drop fell down on the right side of the head, whereupon the ringing ceased but the headache increased."

All the above was the result of one drug impact of the decillional dilution of a preparation of Indian ink-the dried contents of that the question of "large" and "small" in homœopathic drug-dosage is entirely relative. The "dose" of Sepia which Casper Hauser received was absolutely beyond the powers of chemical science to measure or estimate, and yet it was enough to bring out striking features of the Sepia effects already pictured by Hahnemann in his own provings.

Now let us take another example. In August 1829, Kaspar Hauser was gaining flesh. He objected to becoming fat, and Dr. Preu treated him for it. Hahnemann had pointed out that Calcarea is useful in the obesity of youthful subjects. Dr. Preu gave Kaspar Hauser an olfaction of Calcarea 30, and with this result : Immediately there occurred cough and compression of head ; strong smell from the mouth ; and he had a feeling of debility after stool. On the second day his clothes had already become looser. He became excoriated by walking and riding ; loathing at meat ; great falling out of hair ; swelling of veins of hands, and heat of face.

Here we have a remedy which, whilst correcting the trouble for which it was given, produces, in addition, it own characteristic symptoms. There was no question here of a large dose causing symptoms and a small dose curing symptoms, for one and the same dose did both.

The attempted assassination of October 17, 1829, interrupted the series of observations. The wound and the shock threw Kaspar back into his previous condition of hypersensitiveness to all external impressions, and it was long before he recovered from the effects. His restoration was chiefly effected by mesmerism, to which he was extremely responsive ; and Lycopodium was also of use.

After this Kaspar Hauser passed out of the care of Professor Daumer and Dr. Preu; and a second attempt at assassination terminated the career of this mysterious and interesting youth."

Esgataron of the Shwolishay regiment?[edit]

I've heard that the letter Kaspar carried was addressed to 'The Captain of the 4th Esgataron of the Shwolishay regiment'. What does that mean? Is it simply the same thing said in the article only in another language, or is it total nonsense? ---Daimetreya 23:14, 16 July 2006 (UTC)Daimetreya

Esgataron/Eskataron is a distorted version of the French 'Escadron' (=squadron). Shwolishay should really be Schwolische, which is a distorted version of 'Cheveaulègers', another German military word coming from French, it means light cavalry. So it's the same thing as the one in the article, only in the German of the early 19th century. SáT 23:55, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Attempted Murder Weapon[edit]

The weapon used in the first murder attempt on Kaspar was not exactly an axe, but a sharp cutting instrument that resembles a large butcher knife. Kaspar, after the incident, managed to produce his own drawing of this weapon. You can find this information in Jeffrey Masson's book "The Wild Child," which provides a comprehensive overview of Kaspar and his life history. The book itself, its primary part (from which this piece of information is derived), is a translation of Feuerbach's contemporary account. The article could also be improved if the detailed aspects were expanded. LifeScience

Feral Child?[edit]

I noticed this article in the Feral Child category, but I really don't think it applies. He wasn't found in the wild and seems to have had at least basic communication skills? (My own analysis-- which has no place in the article, of course-- makes me suspect that he was retarded or afflicted with some kind of Pervasive Development Disorder and was raised in a box to hide the "shame") CatherS 08:26, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Is it permissible to just take out the link, or do we have to do something else to make sure it's not included? FlaviaR (talk) 01:34, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
Good question-- I think we should punt and ask for help. I'm noticing it's not just WP that has him classed as feral, thought a website called isn't necessarily a valid source. I'm invoking the helpme template on my talk page, will report back. CatherS (talk) 10:16, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Admin agreed-- I have removed the category. CatherS (talk) 22:34, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
He's usually counted among lists of feral children, just as Genie is. There's certainly a distinction between those and ones in the wild, but this would be better added as a note than they be excluded. Note that Genie's article is in fact called Genie (feral child). Salopian (talk) 17:00, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
If you read the article on Feral children, you will see that they define a Feral Child as any child who is raised largely in isolation from other human beings, which is why Genie counts as a Feral child, and why Hauser's story, if true, would qualify him as a Feral child (BTW Hauser does not seem to have been retarded or developmentally disabled, as he was able to be educated enough to hold a civil service job). --KEVP —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:07, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

A mystery perhaps too demystified?[edit]

Kaspar Hauser is one of those enigmas of history, but the current version of this article makes his story too obviously reducible to a case study of a Narcissistic personality disorder. And maybe it was. However, this presentation changes the mystery of this episode from a situation that any reader would find mysterious to one where the reader is forced to wonder why were all of these people fooled by this run-of-the-mill con game? -- llywrch (talk) 08:13, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

...why were all of these people fooled by this run-of-the-mill con game? — There are several answers to this question:
  • Not all of them were fooled. A contemporary Berlin criminalist, J. F. K. Merker, published several articles between 1830 and 1834 regarding Hauser as a humbug, Stanhope realized that he had been deceived, and Feuerbach apparently changed his mind as well.
  • Pathological swindlers are often very successful due to their poise, even if they are of low intelligence. They fully live in their roles and never give any sign of a bad conscience when they are lying.
  • The political circumstances of the European Restoration period did not allow for any participation of ordinary people in political matters, thus they were receptive for such a seemingly miraculous story simply because of the lack of any other public interest.
  • The Romantic zeitgeist also contributed to the myth. It has been pointed out that there are novels of the time (e. g. by Jean Paul) anticipating several motifs of the Hauser legend.
--Luchresi (talk) 01:06, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

  • One might as well point out the irrational nature of romantics who are drawn to Kaspar Hauser in the first place. These people often have their own personality type: they are usually hyper-literate, and looking for something uplifting (that they fail to find in real life), and initially tend to over idealize people whom they find in some way striking, only to devalue them later on. In both cases, they exaggerate certain aspects of the person, or come to see in people like Kaspar Hauser, only the things they want to see. Hence the ancient Persian line of poetry: "All come to befriend me from their own expectations, and none look inside of me for my secrets". The fact that some people had befriended Kaspar Hauser, and later condemned him, may say more about them, than about him.
  • If you want to talk about circumstances of those times, family bonds were very strong. Sons often learned their trade from their fathers. Also, it probably wasn't common for youngsters to cut loose, either economically or socially, from their family. How likely is it that a 16 or 17 year old living at that time and place, would voluntarily cut himself off from his own family, to play an attention-getting game and depend entirely on the goodwill of a strange populace? And if Kaspar Hauser truly received "international attention" (implying that there was widespread fascination), why didn't any family member come forward?
  • Just as there is a tendency with some people to love mysterious things, there is a tendency with others, to act as though they have everything all figured out, without any self-doubt, or without doing any work. This later attitude is perhaps a trademark of our times, where people are used to having things right away, convenience, being spoon-fed information, and pushing buttons - and such people often don't have a concept of complexity.Johan77 (talk) 06:43, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

  • The fact that some people had befriended Kaspar Hauser, and later condemned him, may say more about them, than about him. — I am not sure whether you are right. But even if you are: it's the followers of Hauser who refer to Feuerbach, undoubtedly a great person, as a key witness for Hauser's credibility. This entitles their opponents to a reply, and the truth is that Feuerbach wrote, by the end of his life: "Caspar Hauser is a smart scheming codger, a rogue, a good-for-nothing that ought to be killed."
  • … family bonds were very strong … — Well, it is quite possible that Hauser was the illegitimate son of a soldier (as the two letters suggest) and that he suffered from some kind of illness. He probably wasn't beloved by his relatives.
  • How likely is it that a 16 or 17 year old living at that time and place, would voluntarily cut himself off from his own family, to play an attention-getting game and depend entirely on the goodwill of a strange populace? — Who says that it was that simple? The game was played by the public just as much as by Hauser. He wanted to become a cavalryman but the people were fascinated by his strange personality. Following then current ideas about wild children, princes in disguise and other things, a bizarre myth was created. Hauser joined the game. The story of his imprisonment was probably suggested to him by Binder's questions.
  • why didn't any family member come forward? — Because they would have been punished for neglecting and abandoning their child.
  • Just as there is a tendency with some people to love mysterious things, there is a tendency with others, to act as though they have everything all figured out, without any self-doubt, or without doing any work. — You underestimate the profound work of serious researchers like Ivo Striedinger or Jean Mistler.
--Luchresi (talk) 15:36, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Just as there is a tendency with some people to love mysterious things, there is a tendency with others, to act as though they have everything all figured out, without any self-doubt, or without doing any work. — You underestimate the profound work of serious researchers like Ivo Striedinger or Jean Mistler. - I would prefer to read it for myself, and check to see how they reached their conclusion (if any), and what material they included or didn't include. "Profound" works, and "serious researchers" have been proven wrong before. How a conclusion is reached is what's scientifically important - not who reaches it, or what adjectives are used to describe it.
  • I'm sorry, but I agree with the person who raised the objection to this article. The article is not informative - it is one sided, and conveniently omits any information that would indicate that Hauser was not a complete impostor. What about the room in Pilsach castle, that was discovered to match Hauser's description of his dungeon, complete with a carved wooden horse? What about the opinion of Dr. Friedrich Wilhelm Heidenreich - who apparently conducted the autopsy - that the mortal wound could not have been self-inflicted? Or the suspicious timing of Stanhope's last letter to Kaspar - apparently written after Stanhope should have known of his death? ... or the fact that Stanhope apparently never mentioned Kaspar in any of his letters to his family, while he was, in person, demonstrating such a keen interest in Hauser?... and why was Stanhope apparently trying so hard to convince people that Kaspar was a fake, after his death? Why in the end was Feuerbach, whose statement about Kaspar's ability to lie is quoted by doubters of Kaspar Hauser's sainthood (hehe!), convinced after all that Hauser was in fact of Royal birth - despite everything? Why is none of this information present in the article? These are "facts", as much as any other provided. Are we supposed to ignore all this, and just concentrate on the anti-Kasparist material? Johan77 (talk) 02:26, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
  • You're misinformed. Heidenreich (who didn't conduct the autopsy) admitted that the wound could be self-inflicted; none of the doctors thought this was impossible. The room in Pilsach doesn't match Hauser's description, and the story about Stanhope's last letter is false as well.
  • the profound work of serious researchers like Ivo Striedinger or Jean Mistler. - I would prefer to read it for myself, … — You should do so.
--Luchresi (talk) 08:01, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to add that this article seems to be setting out to prove, and in a pretty irritating tone to be honest, that Kaspar Hauser absolutely was a fraud, when there actually remains a huge amount of mystery surrounding the case. Only the most doubt-inducing evidence is provided. I'm just pointing out that any perceptive reader will easily be able to pick out the bias in the article - it does seem slightly obnoxious at times and definitely seems more interested in "demystifying" than giving the facts as they are. -Cliff

  • "… there actually remains a huge amount of mystery surrounding the case." — Yes and no. There is no doubt that he was a liar, that his tale about his imprisonment was a lie and that his fatal wound was self-inflicted. We do not know, however, where he came from and who his parents were. As to his personality and his motives, there remains some scope for different interpretations.
  • "Only the most doubt-inducing evidence is provided." — It's reality that provided only the most doubt-inducing evidence.
  • "… it does seem slightly obnoxious at times" — That's not the article's fault. Kaspar Hauser was a notorious liar, as all his caretakers have realized sooner or later. There is, for example, a (maybe "slightly obnoxious") note by Feuerbach's hand that was found in his legacy (Ivo Striedinger: Neues Schrifttum über Kaspar Hauser, p. 449):
"Caspar Hauser ist ein pfiffiger, durchtriebener Kauz, ein Schelm, ein Taugenichts, den man todmachen sollte."
Translation: "Caspar Hauser is a smart scheming codger, a rogue, a good-for-nothing that ought to be killed."
  • "… and definitely seems more interested in 'demystifying' than giving the facts as they are." — The article does give the facts as they are, with references to reputable sources. It is these facts that are demystifying.
--Luchresi (talk) 16:56, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
The tone of this response is slightly obnoxious. There's a reason this is still a mystery, which the known facts do not completely dispel. Huangdi (talk) 14:59, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
No. Just because you believe that this is a mystery, doesn't prove that there is a reason for this belief. You should form your opinion according to the facts rather than vice versa.--Luchresi (talk) 23:03, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
This article does actually seem pretty biased. If there's a belief that there's a mystery to the case (as the article states), that belief should continue throughout the article. And Huangdi doesn't have to prove there's a mystery. The burden of proof falls on the one who wants to definitively state something as fact - not the one who says he doesn't know.
I agree that Hauser seems to have been a pathological liar, but since there's no overwhelmingly obvious proof that his circumstances were imagined, I think we should err on the side of caution. - Yggdriedi (talk) 01:01, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
The article quotes an expert opinion: "If he had been living since childhood under the conditions he describes, he would not have developed beyond the condition of an idiot; indeed he would not have remained alive long." That's the proof. It doesn't matter that many non-experts believe in Hauser's nonsense story. Wikipedia is (should be) based on reliable sources.--Luchresi (talk) 16:08, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
There are some problems with this "expert" and his/her opinion, in that he/she seems to be removed from a significant part of the body of evidence and so the opinion has a speculative component. And of course: "opinion" is not "proof". Everybody seems to agree that the most plausible explanation is indeed that the "mystery" was fabricated, and the discussion is about whether the "burden of proof" hurdle has indeed been cleared. IMHO, no. Also IMHO, the article is biased (agree with Ygg there). elpincha (talk) 17:30, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
this "expert" and his/her opinion — Well, the expert is Karl Leonhard, a preeminent physician, and your inverted commas are inappropriate. The quotation stems from a peer-reviewed article in an academic journal, and that's precisely the kind of proof required in Wikipedia. Leonhard refers to the work of other researchers like René Spitz, and you may also compare Günter Hesse: Die Krankheit Kaspar Hausers, in: Münchner Medizinische Wochenschrift, 109. Jg. 1967, S. 156–163. Hesse and Leonhard have different opinions on Hauser's illness, but they both reject the story of his imprisonment as definitely impossible. A child cannot survive fourteen years under such barbarous circumstances and needs more nutrition than water, bread and opium. This is scientific consensus.--Luchresi (talk) 17:09, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
Bread can contain little or plenty of nutrition - it depends on the type of bread, how it is prepared, and what is put in it. The expert you mentioned was a Psychiatrist, right?... Psychiatry was a rudimentary field in his time, and is still a rudimentary field even today. Are there controlled experiments to demonstrate what would happen if a human were subjected to the conditions Karl Leonhard says would result in idiocy? Once again, something is true or not true based on how the conclusion was reached - not on who reached it.Johan77 (talk) 02:38, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
Unfortunately, it does happen that children are neglected in a gruesome way. It is nowadays well-known and documented that they suffer the most severe damages. I have mentioned several scholarly articles but I am not going to quote them in detail. You can read them for yourself. By the way, it is impossible to learn writing in just one lesson in a dark room, as Hauser claimed to have done.--Luchresi (talk) 08:29, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
Luchresi: Please accept that some of the people who disagree with you have already understood your point, and they still disagree. Your last post ("children ... neglected in a gruesome way... suffer the most severe damages") may be true, but is merely speculative in the context of analyzing Kaspar Hauser? Overwhelming plausibility does not equal certainty, and of course does not equal proof. Proof in this case is linked evidence. Just to make a point (not to attack anybody here): there are psychiatrists who will testify under oath that person X suffers from condition Y, and then it is found that either this is not true, or that condition Y does not exist (see "recovered memory" used as "evidence" in child abuse cases).
The comparison is not apropos. It could hardly be called overwhelmingly plausible that "recovered memory" is valid evidence, and no scientific consensus suggests that it is.--Luchresi (talk) 15:35, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

We have medical cases of children raised under abusive and neglectful situations very similar to those that Kaspar Hauser claimed to have been raised under, they have a certain set of symptoms that Kaspar seems not to have had. Jan Bondeson discussed the case in his book "The Great Pretenders". His analysis of the evidence is that the fatal wound may not have been self-inflicted. And Bondeson also points out that Hauser does not really compare to the other impostors he studied, he really didn't benefit financially from his story, and at no point did he "take the money and run" which is what would be expected of an impostor. There really is no sign of greed, everyone insists Hauser was kind and gentle. Moving more into original research: I feel like I have met people like this, people who just seem to be "pathological liars" who simply tell lies for no real reason. Hauser seems to have told people what they wanted to hear, but with no thought of reward for himself. I am also struck that he first told the story about growing up in a confined space when he at the time was living in prison. (And apparently had only just learned how to talk--how much did he actually say and how much was "read in" to the story by others?). Perhaps there is some sort of medical condition which makes it difficult to differentiate between reality and imagination? Very young children behave like this (they can, for example, imagine a monster under the bed and then become sure it is real), maybe Hauser for some reason didn't grow out of this stage? It seems like for every theory about Kaspar Hauser ("He was an impostor", "He was mentally handicapped", "His story is basically true") there is very good evidence against each and every theory. --KEVP —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 12:35, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

There is not a single piece of evidence against the theory proven fact that he was a liar and that his fatal wound was self-inflicted. Okay, this is my personal opinion, but, really, I don't see any problems with NPOV and the current version of the article. Even if there may be some quotable authors who believe that Hauser was murdered: the article doesn't make a definite statement on that point, it just displays the most important arguments that he was not. This is appropriate as these arguments have been acknowleged by so many scholarly authors, both by historians and physicians.--Luchresi (talk) 16:53, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
I agree he was a liar, I agree that there is a distinct possibility that the fatal wound was self-inflicted. But this does not clear up the mystery. Who was he? Why did he tell these lies? He certainly doesn't seem to have gained very much from telling these lies. There are still plenty of unanswered questions. There is still a mystery.--KEVP —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:03, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
He had much to gain, an easy life with no work or hardships. The only mystery is who his parents actually were, where he came from etc. EchetusXe (talk) 13:06, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

"It is nowadays consensus among serious researchers that Hauser's account cannot possibly be true." This is a very bold and at the same time very vague statement, which is not reflected in the rest of the article. It implies that most serious researchers think Hauser was a simple fraud, but it doesn't say so outright. The sentence should be more clear, and properly backed up by more sources from researchers (instead of arguing among laymen Wikipedians). Ornilnas (talk) 21:39, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

I've added "or at least not taken literally", to make things clearer. The statement about the "consensus" can be backed up with the reference given, the article by W. Schreibmüller in a scholarly journal. He says that there is no debate on that point anymore. Furthermore, I can refer to Hesse, Leonhard, Keuler, three modern physicians who have written on the topic, and they all say that it's impossible.--Luchresi (talk) 19:25, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
"Or at least not taken literally"? That's supposed to be "clearer"? How so? If it's not taken literally, how is it to be taken? Symbolically? Metaphorically? Please explain. What I'm perceiving here is that Luchresi has taken it upon himself/herself to completely rewrite the article and move it away from a neutral stance (that the Hauser story is an historical mystery lacking in verifiable details and confused by the personal involvement of its commentators) and veer it into a personal crusade to promise that vast networks of unnamed individuals' opinions in otherwise scholarly publications definitively prove that Hauser was a liar. Okay, except -- and this is the point that Luchresi consistently fails to understand -- no one is disputing that Hauser was a liar. What we are disputing is that this mystery/legend/con job/whatever has been as thoroughly discredited/debunked/demystified. We know Hauser was a liar; nearly everyone who had intimate dealings with him said so. There seems to be considerable disagreement on what long-term effects would result from living in a darkened cell without personal interaction; a universal "consensus" is not reached by a handful of researchers, and certainly there are others who oppose the views of the few you've named here. Certainly it's unlikely that he would have turned out as (relatively) well-adjusted as he did if he was kept in a dark cell for the first 16 years (one would suspect severe developmental retardation, which appears not to be the case, and utter dependency on others for survival, which also appears not to be the case, but appearances are not proof). But the mystery remains: who was it who was claiming he had been? Did the letter writer/caretaker/possible assassin actually exist? Did Hauser fake even this aspect? Why would someone concoct such an implausible story? Where did Hauser come from? Was he just a disordered youth greedy for attention? Was he the pawn of an attempt to defraud the Baden line, as was originally suggested in an earlier form of this article (nearly all scraps of which have subsequently been removed by Luchresi)? There are still a considerable number of questions left unanswered, in spite of Luchresi's efforts to insist the opposite. Just because he was a pathological liar whom one guardian referred to as worthless doesn't mean we know where he came from, or why he was the way he was. The mystery that Luchresi is struggling so mightily to deny has inspired art and literature for centuries, yet this notable fact has been obscured by an attempt to "prove" that there is no mystery here. Inferences can be made from the DNA evidence, but not firm conclusions. Period commentary on the case seems to have come from people personally involved in it (also removed was a passage about Stanhope's discouragement over the growing costs of supporting Hauser in light of diminishing hope that he would ever be able to prove a relationship to the House of Baden) or scholarly individuals who chose to voice an opinion based on third-party evidence. There is very little here that is actually conclusive. Scholarly opinions, regardless of who voices them, are still opinions. If anyone has really closed the book on this officially, where are the answers to the extant questions that make this still a mystery? (talk) 00:01, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
  • "If it's not taken literally, how is it to be taken?" - Scholarly authors (like Leonhard or Keuler) disproved Hauser's story about a strict and unbroken incarceration since childhood, but some of them (like Keuler) remark that it is conceivable that Hauser was imprisoned for some time. (But maybe it was not a good idea to add those words: "or at least not taken literally". I've removed them in the meantime.--Luchresi (talk) 17:09, 6 April 2009 (UTC))
  • "Just because he was a pathological liar … doesn't mean we know where he came from, or why he was the way he was." — I couldn't agree more.
--Luchresi (talk) 20:53, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Rogue codger[edit]

I have removed the following bolded section from the article. It doesn't seem to make sense.

"This certainly was a grievous loss to him — although Feuerbach had apparently stopped believing in Hauser; at least he had written a note (to be found in his legacy) which read: "Caspar Hauser is a smart scheming codger, a rogue, a good-for-nothing that ought to be killed."

So Feuerbach was in support of Hauser because he was a liar? I think whoever put that in the article misread the meaning of smart as used in that translation - or, perhaps, misread the context. Feuerbach was clearly not complimenting Hauser. - Yggdriedi (talk) 01:01, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Feuerbach used to believe in Hauser's story and helped him a lot, but he changed his mind by the end of his life. Being disappointed and feeling deceived, he wrote that note, which was found in his legacy; but he didn't openly break with him. Hauser had more serious trouble with schoolmaster Meyer, and that's why Feuerbach's death was a grievous loss to him. He was now alone with Meyer whom he had never liked.--Luchresi (talk) 15:49, 6 May 2008 (UTC)


Hi.I wanted to see if how the name is pronunced? HAWZER or HAWSER?Bbadree (talk) 17:09, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

The "s" is voiced. But "Hau" is pronounced roughly like English "how", not like "haw". I think "Howzer" or "Houzer" would be good transcriptions.--Luchresi (talk) 21:35, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

"Mentally retarded"[edit]

This phrase is used in the first paragraph of the section entitled 'Vestner Gate Tower': is this a current idiom in the United States? I ask this question in good faith, as it would be seen as pretty offensive and not at all appropriate here in the United Kingdom. If it's an acceptable term in the States, I'll let it stand: if not, could someone suggest a less controversial substitute? Dom Kaos (talk) 05:44, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

How did the “prince legend” begin?[edit]

A point that, if I’m not mistaken (if I am, sorry!), is not explained in the article, but seems very important to me: how did all the fuss begin?

I mean: a poor boy is found, with the letters and all the rest. People begin to wonder: who is he? That’s only natural!

But then somebody begins to say that he is, or may be, or might possibly be..., the hereditary prince of Baden: why? with what evidence?

It seems ridiculous to discuss whether he was or wasn’t a prince, when we’ve never heard one single piece of evidence.

Is it a sort of urban legend?

(I’m not saying that he wasn’t a prince of Baden. I’m just asking: why did people begin to think that he might be a prince? The article doesn’t answer this question; and it should, of course.) Tom Hope

The circumstances of Hauser's supposed imprisonment and the alleged attacks led people to think that he was someone of great importance, and the rumours about his Baden princedom were used for propaganda purposes by various political enemies of the grand-ducal House. But the precise origins of the legend are unknown. In any case: "The silly fairytale, which to this day moves many pens and has found much belief, was fully disproved in Otto Mittelstädt's book on Kaspar Hauser and his Baden Princedom (Heidelberg 1876)", as historian Fritz Trautz put it (see: [1]).--Luchresi (talk) 23:29, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
By the way, it is true: "The fable about a Prince of Baden had not a single shred of evidence in its favour" (Andrew Lang, see [2]). "Abject credulity, love of mystery, love of scandal, and political passions", as Lang goes on to say, produced the myth.--Luchresi (talk) 00:52, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
And once again you've missed the point. You're very good at delineating your references here, on the discussion page. But if you are going to nearly completely replace an existing article with a creation of your own, you need to be explaining all this where it actually counts, in the article. If you had, people wouldn't still be asking these questions. Simply listing your sources is meaningless if you aren't going to explain the arguments they present against the veracity of the Hauser legend. And stating that "it is true" that there is no supporting evidence to Hauser's claims or the claims made for him by paraphrasing Lang and citing him doesn't mean that it is true. Lang was expressing an opinion. Where is the evidence he used as the basis for it? All you've said is that "it's true because Andrew Lang said so." That's not proof, and it doesn't prove that Lang was stating anything other than his opinion. Listing sources isn't enough; you need to summarize in the article what these sources are saying, and why they say it. Otherwise, your statements in the article are as meaningless as your own original research. (talk) 00:18, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
You're wrong. The article does outline the most important arguments against the veracity of the Hauser legend, and the references are given.--Luchresi (talk) 20:53, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

"A now discredited theory"[edit]

The opening paragraph states that "A now discredited theory linked him with the princely House of Baden." Since when is the theory discredited? The DNA evidence makes it possible that he is the prince, and the "official documentation" can hardly be enough to completely discredit it. I saw a 2002 documentary, and it didn't discredit the theory. User:Lord Xavius 17:19, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

The documents and the other sources led the historians (those teaching history at universities) to regard the theory as refuted. WP follows the scholarly literature, and the 2002 "documentary" (in fact a TV mystery series) is not a scholarly source.--Luchresi (talk) 18:52, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
You are wrong Luchresi, the whole evidence that Kaspar Hauser is not of House of Baden is based on the blood stain found on his underwear which has been prooven that it is not infact Kaspar's blood. And the "2002 documentary" as you call it didn't do these tests themselves but instead got forensics from University of Münster to verify the samples. And they could not approve or disapprove the connection between Hauser and House of Baden and therefore the myth remains and will remain until House of Baden lets scientists test the corpses of Stéphanie de Beauharnais and the infant that is or is not her son.--Adriatic_HR (talk) 9:13, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
No, it has not been proven that the blood found on Hauser's underwear is not his own, but it doesn't even matter. The legend has long been disproved, the evidence is based on written sources. The relevant literature is of course the one written by professional historians. Forensics is just an ancillary science in this case. The historians are convinced that the hereditary prince died in 1812, and have been long before the DNA analyses started. See, to mention just one more example, Lore Schwarzmaier's essay: Der badische Hof unter Großherzog Leopold und die Kaspar-Hauser-Affäre: Eine neue Quelle in den Aufzeichnungen des Markgrafen Wilhelm von Baden. Zeitschrift zur Geschichte des Oberrheins 134, 1986, pp. 245–262. Fritz Trautz, who held a chair in history at the University of Mannheim, is already quoted in the article: "The silly fairytale [i.e. the prince legend] … was fully disproved in Otto Mittelstädt's book." If you believe to know better than Professor Trautz, you might try to get a chair in history yourself and write peer-reviewed articles on Kaspar Hauser, so that we can quote them on Wikipedia. Have a look at WP:V.--Luchresi (talk) 22:00, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

The Kasper Houser Mystery - was it fake?[edit]

As much as Houser's story is believed to be fake, as it is, Was it Houser who made it up? It might have been to hide something dark, or maybe his parents didn't want him to squeal on them. My story would go somewhat like this:

Kasper House lived in a big house. His parents had done commited a crime and knew that he might tell somebody, so they kept him in a small, dark celler where they gave him food and drink. When he was 16, his parents gave him freedom of some kind. They may have drugged him to get to the city, and told him what to say, but years later, he may have said something he wasn't supposed to, so he had to die.

Suppose his father was a doctor, for instance. I don't know about the 19th century, but disection was banned, and he had to find a body. Maybe young Kasper was a truthful person, who hated lying. Maybe he accidentally saw what his father was doing, and his father felt that he had to do it.

What do you think happened to him?

-- (talk) 07:43, 24 August 2009 (UTC)MINOVA VINXS

lol! very creative- you may be interested in several fictional works inspired by Kaspar Hauser which explore this sort of scenario. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 12:42, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Edits to this article[edit]

I get the distinct impression from looking at this article, and the contributions made to it by one or two users - and the nature of their contribution history to other articles - that it is being regarded as something of a personal issue.

Is it that certain editors feel the need to defend the House of Baden? Or is it just that certain editors feel strongly about conspiracy theories? I dont know. But whichever it is, I think a few steps need to be taken back from the article and a more objective point of view given.

Consequently, I have made some edits to that effect. More need to be made. Please leave these more NPOV edits in place. Wembwandt (talk) 11:06, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

I think that "certain editors" feel the need to use scholarly publications and to weight differing opinions according to their importance.--Luchresi (talk) 17:36, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

The POV of the article[edit]

This article seems to have a particular POV. The claims made about Hauser's so-called self inflicted wounds, sound dubious. It also claims he was a liar, but no evidence of lieing is presented. John D. Croft (talk) 18:21, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

This criticism is not justified. The article cites scholarly publications on the topic, and the references are given. That's the way articles should be written.--Luchresi (talk) 18:56, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
The article, or rather you Luchresi, also cites "scholarly" articles to give undue weight to a particular POV. Editing from a WP:SPA as you do Special:Contributions/Luchresi would arouse suspicion independent of your oft-times peculiar edits that you've got an axe to grind here, and your recent ablation of all dissenting analysis in the Medical opinions section [3] confirms that you are by no means an independent editor. Your sources are exclusively auf Deutsch, which is no problem if you've fairly represented them, but that seems improbable given your evident bias and aggressive defense of that single POV. Until some unbiased editor can evaluate them, I suggest that editors treat them as Luchresi's interpretations, free translations if you will.
It also appears that Luchresi has himself translated from his sources to provide dramatic quotations for this article. I strongly suggest that these be replaced with the original language and a footnote with the translation naming the translator. If not, I'll replace them with prose description shortly. Yappy2bhere (talk) 19:14, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
No, this is all wrong. I've just improved the article, using scholarly literature by professional historians.--Luchresi (talk) 20:03, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
The article (as I read it) doesn't say Hauser was a liar; it says Stanhope and others called him a liar. —Tamfang (talk) 19:00, 26 May 2010 (UTC)


Fritz Trautz: „Das einfältige Märchen, das bis heute viele Federn bewegt und viel Glauben gefunden hat, ist in dem … Buch von Otto Mittelstädt über »Kaspar Hauser und sein badisches Prinzenthum« (Heidelberg 1876) ausführlich widerlegt worden.“ [4]

Translation: "The silly fairytale, which to this day moves many pens and has found much belief, was fully disproved in Otto Mittelstädt's book."

Feuerbach: „Caspar Hauser ist ein pfiffiger, durchtriebener Kauz, ein Schelm, ein Taugenichts, den man todmachen sollte.“ [5] Translation: "Caspar Hauser is a smart scheming codger, a rogue, a good-for-nothing that ought to be killed."

Karl Leonhard's article has an English abstract; I quote from that verbatim.--Luchresi (talk) 20:00, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

And here we have the difficulty. A translator less invested in this topic might have rendered Feurbach's description as "a sly, cunning fellow, a knave, a rascal" though of course there's no question about his murderous intent. Free translation by a WP editor is of course WP:OR, so something must be done about the quotations. What I suggested earlier is acceptable practice in academic publication, so it should satisfy WP:NOR.
The link to Trautz is excellent - perhaps you'll add it to the article reference. However, Trautz is still a tertiary source that you've cited in favor of Mittelstadt. I understand why you'd want to trade on Trautz's reputation to bolster Mittelstadt's thesis, but since Mittelstadt is available it isn't appropriate. A search for kaspar hauser at, which owns the discontinued Confinia Psychiatrica, doesn't return Leonhard's article. Perhaps it isn't indexed. Yappy2bhere (talk) 20:55, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
No, "Kauz" has a certain connotaion, "fellow" is neutral. See: [6]. I've seen dozens of such translations on WP, not rejected as OR. And by WP's standard, Trautz's judgment on Mittelstädt is more important than Mittelstädt seen individually. He's a renowned 20th century historian while Mittelstädt was a 19th century chief prosecutor. It is important to emphasize that Mittelstädt's reasoning has been accepted by academic historiography.--Luchresi (talk) 21:20, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
Which WP standard? I know of WP:RS: "Tertiary sources... should not be used in place of secondary sources for detailed discussion." Have you another in mind? Yappy2bhere (talk) 21:50, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
It's not a tertiary source in the sense of that policy ("compendia, encyclopedias, textbooks", i. e. semi-scholarly literature); it's a scholarly publication in its own right. The fact that Trautz discusses Mittelstädt (and many others) doesn't make his article a "tertiary source". Almost any article by a historian would be a tertiary source according to that logic.--Luchresi (talk) 18:36, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
PS, the link can be found in the Further Reading paragraph.--Luchresi (talk) 21:35, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

The quotations of Mrs. Biberbach are: "entsetzliche Lügenhaftigkeit" (horrendous mendacity), "Verstellungskunst" (art of dissimulation) and "voll Eitelkeit und Tücke" (full of vanity and spite). These are from a letter to Mrs. Meyer; the full text can be found in Jochen Hörisch (ed.): Ich möchte ein solcher werden wie…: Materialien zur Sprachlosigkeit des Kaspar Hauser. Suhrkamp Verlag, Frankfurt/M., 1979, pp. 57-60.--Luchresi (talk) 20:15, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Undue weight[edit]

It's not a fair representation of the scholarly literature to give the last word to that Bartsch et al. paper. They don't cite any professional historian, not one, just popular and esoteric books on the case. There's nothing new in their paper; other physicians had uttered similar opinions before, and others had disagreed. The historians (like Ivo Striedinger and Fritz Trautz) all knew that, and still they firmly concluded that Hauser stabbed himself in an attempt to revive public interest in his story. Leonhard has no doubts either.--Luchresi (talk) 20:36, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

"The last word"? Then move it to the beginning of the section, if you like. The point is, opinions differ in this case, yet you insist that yours to be the first, last, and only word, and actively suppress contrary evidence to support your position. For the life of me I can't see why you've amplified a reasonable conclusion that Hauser was likely shamming into a monomaniacal obsession to suppress the remaining uncertainty and demonstrable differences of opinion that do indeed exist. Very strange. In any case, inclusion of a paper by forensic pathologists accepted by a respected peer-reviewed journal of forensic pathology is eminently fair. Indeed preferring the opinion of an historian to that of a forensic pathologist in a question of forensic pathology is irrational. Speaking purely from academic perspective, that is. Yappy2bhere (talk) 21:09, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
No, it is not irrational. Forensics is an ancillary science in this case. The historians did consider all the material available, including the forensic evidence. Bartsch er al. make totally uninformed statements on the non-forensic evidence, and they use sources that don't even match the standards of WP. It's unfortunate that such a bad paper is used here, just because it has been accepted by a medical journal. It's the same game that creationists like to play: googling for the abstract of that one paper that seems to support their view and has been published in a serious journal. Bartsch et al.'s statements are ambiguous and inconclusive anyway.--Luchresi (talk) 21:56, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
How bizarre! Bartsch is a modern forensic analysis of existing data, evaluated by other respected forensic scientists before publication. It's only "bad" in that it doesn't unreservedly support the conclusion you prefer, which derives from your own evident lack of a WP:NPOV (or perhaps an undisclosed WP:COI) than to any deficiency in the paper. (In English, "bad" in this context would mean that the evidence or analysis is somehow deficient, not that the paper is somehow making the "wrong" point.) An historian is no better qualified than a layman to evaluate the science of an analysis such as this, and in any case Striedinger and Trautz wrote 30 and 70 years, respectively, before this study was published. PCR hadn't even been invented yet, and the techniques of Bartsch et al. to determine whether the trajectory of the weapon was consistent with Hauser's range of motion weren't yet available. A modern forensic analysis is in many ways superior to an autopsy by a general surgeon of 180 years ago or an analysis by a general physician of 80 years ago, let alone a critique by an historian of 40 years past, and publication in a peer-reviewed journal is at least assurance that many professionals skilled in the field have read the analysis with the opportunity to comment on any deficiencies it might have had. Yappy2bhere (talk) 21:33, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
Your non sequitur introduction of creationism as a straw man is either intellectually dishonest, or betrays an inability to reason and argue logically. Likewise your remarks on Bartsch reveal that you either didn't read (or perhaps understand) the paper before disparaging it, or have chosen to willfully misrepresent it; neither is worthy of a scholar with true respect for historiography. Yappy2bhere (talk) 21:34, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
whether the trajectory of the weapon was consistent with Hauser's range of motion - and the answer is yes.--Luchresi (talk) 21:46, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
No, the answer was "maybe" - maybe so if he was more limber than most, maybe not otherwise. Hence the conclusion that neither suicide nor murder could be conclusively ruled out. Yappy2bhere (talk) 22:09, 31 August 2010 (UTC)


There's nothing wrong with Schreibmüller's article. He cites Striedinger and other historians (and physicians as well). He is himself cited and accepted by Lore Schwarzmaier in a scholarly article in a professional historians' journal (Lore Schwarzmaier: Der badische Hof unter Großherzog Leopold und die Kaspar-Hauser-Affäre: Eine neue Quelle in den Aufzeichnungen des Markgrafen Wilhelm von Baden. Zeitschrift zur Geschichte des Oberrheins 134, 1986, pp. 245–262; she quotes the 1983 version of Schreibmüllers Bilanz.)--Luchresi (talk) 21:04, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Schreibmuller is a minor academic with an almost non-existent publication record. His magnum opus, his only publication of note really, is the 44 page tract (his doctoral thesis?) that you so copiously cite. It was extremely weak support for the sweeping conclusion that "[t]he story about Hauser's alleged incarceration is nowadays widely seen as incompatible with modern medical knowledge of hospitalism," particularly since your "medical" authority Spitz was a psychoanalyst who last practiced medicine per se in 1910, and Leonhard (1970) hardly represents "modern medical knowledge" of the physiological and psychosocial effects of isolation. Consequently, I struck this, and left Schreibmuller to support what he could reasonably support in the article. I'd still prefer to see secondary sources replace this tertiary source, particularly since you're using it for some particularly garish quotes. Yappy2bhere (talk) 22:02, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
Schreibmüller's article was also published in 91. Jahrbuch des Historischen Vereins für Mittelfranken, Ansbach 1982/83, pp. 129–172. That's a scholarly publication. (Have a look at this page: [7]. The current chief editor is Georg Seiderer who is a professor for Bavarian and Franconian history at the University of Erlangen-Nürnberg.) The article is a "secondary source". By the way, Schreibmüller is (or was) a judge.--Luchresi (talk) 19:43, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Portraits of Kaspar, Stephanie, and Luise[edit]

The 1830 portrait of Hauser might be used to better purpose next to the (idealized) portrait of his supposed mother Stephanie to permit the reader to look for a family resemblance. That would overcrowd the section with pictures, but does the portrait of Luise really help the article?

Perhaps someone (yes, I mean you, Luchresi, since you have a particular interest in this aspect of the narrative) could flesh out Luise's alleged motive and the ghost story with detail and references. I'm particularly confused why Luise, whose sons were ineligible to inherit their father's titles until 1817, would kidnap the baby in 1812. I'm also interested to learn who she was disguising herself from. Surely it wasn't from the child. Yappy2bhere (talk) 22:59, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

You're beginning to realize that the story doesn't make sense. It doesn't make sense because it is nonsense. I cannot explain to you why she kidnapped the child because she didn't kidnap the child. I cannot explain to you why she disguised herself as a ghost because she didn't disguise herself as a ghost. I cannot explain to you why Hauser was murdered because he was not murdered. Got it?--Luchresi (talk) 20:01, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
As to the pictures: I thought it was visually appealing to place the two women - antagonists according to the legend - on either side of the text.--Luchresi (talk) 20:55, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

See also section[edit]

This article flows pretty well right now and I didn't really see any good place to interrupt it with an annotation about the Kaspar Hauser syndrome of growth retardtion. So I put in a See also section with a reference to support the assertion of existance of such a syndrome. Trouble is that Wikipedia gives an error message if such references are placed after the reflist template. So I moved the See also section above the reflist template and footnotes section, where it now sticks out nearly but not quite as badly as if I'd stuck it into the article. I'll look at it later on to see if it can be rememdied, but if someone else wants to write it into the article feel free.Trilobitealive (talk) 16:55, 6 February 2011 (UTC)


The article is mixing facts and speculations. The authors have selected "reliable" sources (i.e. authors —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:04, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

The authors have selected reliable sources (i. e. peer-reviewed papers by professors in history). Selecting reliable sources and preferring them to occult trash by no means violates our NPOV-policy.--Luchresi (talk) 17:22, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Kaspar's knees[edit]

I recall reading an entry on Kaspar Hauser (in a Rigby publication?) saying that when he sat with his leg extended there were no hollows in the backs of his knees; that they were flush with the ground. Is this in any other consulted source? MartinSFSA (talk) 08:51, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Who he was and where he came from....[edit]

I was 16 years old when i was sendt through time from an analog timemachine to the known location of hauser. I am from Denmark and born in 1973. I was an experiment and my memory was wiped clean. the machine made a copy of me through time and space. My name is Torben Svare :) this is not a joke.... truth is stranger than fiction.......... — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 03:24, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

The Paralell univerce theory[edit]

I read a theory about Kaspar in a book called Seriously weird true stories (ISBN 0-590-13973-8). The theory was that ouruniverce is in the cantre of mirror images of our past and future, if you climbed through to oone of the mirror images, you could travel through time, but when you came back you would write in mirror writing. So Kaspar may have been a time traveller! (talk) 10:33, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

the best explanation! is here[edit] 11 — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:55, 28 November 2013 (UTC)