PA PA - Dorothy Forstein, 40, Philadelphia, 18 Oct 1949

[steff13]

Who wouldn't want their Mama's murder/ disappearance solved?

Well, if there's an indication their father was involved, they might just rather not think about .

 

[Alleykins]

Well, if there's an indication their father was involved, they might just rather not think about .

Agreed. It's not a matter of who, but why. Loyalty to their father is a darn good reason.

 

[Creole]

I know this isn't a case that is inundated with interest, but found this item while poking around about Dorothy Forstein's case (obviously not written by me). I could not confirm the newspaper article as I do not have a subscription but maybe someone else does:

Dorothy Forstein -- possible connection? : UnresolvedMysteries

"I recently got a subscription to newspapers.com, and I was just derping around, looking at random things. I knew about the Dorothy Forstein disappearance -- it's always intrigued me. There is a write up about her in this forum here: The Mysterious Disappearance of Housewife Dorothy Forstein : UnresolvedMysteries.

I found an article that stated that in September of 1944 in Philadelphia, a crowd was booing Governor Dewey because of his past anti-Semitic remarks. One man, Morris Anmuth, was taken from the crowd by two policemen, dragged into an alley, and beaten so severely he had to taken to the hospital after being arrested for inciting a riot. Later, Dorothy's husband Jules, a magistrate, dropped all charges against the policemen, and Morris was fined $10 for the riot charge.

A few months later, Dorothy was beaten in her home so severely that she suffered fractures to her jaw and a shoulder that would "fall out of its socket" several times a year."

I wonder if Morris Anmuth was responsible for Dorothy's beating, as retaliation against Jules Forstein dropping the charges against the policemen who so savagely beat him? Here's an article about the beating: 18 Sep 1944, Page 16 - The Indiana Gazette at Newspapers.com.

I know this is too old to be solved, but that beating connection just sort of popped out at me, and I wondered if others saw it, too."

 

[Alleykins]

Interesting theory

 

[Diane Redfern]

I think the possibility of an stalker can't be ruled out; however, the fact Jules Forstein didn't contact the Police immediately, he avoided the story from appearing on the the newspapers during the first weeks and the strange silence of the family even nowadays... it makes me think the husband is involved. Maybe the children knew it from the start, I don't know, but even if it was just a suspicion, I imagine it hurts as hell and they just want to forget the whole thing. So sorry for them.

 

[scoobamang]

Has anyone on these forums ever discovered some key piece of evidence nobody has attempted to conceal; around which no plot has been weaved to shield it from view of a happy and ignorant public; a fact plainly stated, of great relevance to a case, but until the moment your zealous enthusiasm for historical research of minutiae has led you to zoom in on a key classified ad from November 8th, 1962, buried 28 pages into an ephemeral newsletter published briefly in Skokie, Illinois 60 years ago, had not been considered as evidence? Have you ever discovered some critical factotum not considered news when it was printed however many decades ago and not considered again, whatsoever, until your eyes fell upon it in disbelief?

Needless to say, I just recently did just that. I do not want to sound self-congratulatory or bragadocious, or as if I am thumbing my nose at the conservative-minded, tight-lipped, rain-jacket-clad gumshoes of yesteryear. Indeed I hope Cannon, Mannix, Barnaby Jones, Gerald Kookston of 77 Sunset Strip fame, and all the rest are following one-another's footsteps with a high-resolution magnifying glass in the big P.I. park in the sky; or alternately are hot on their buddies' trails, soon to arrive at the big P.I. park in the sky. Their methods were revolutionary and important in their respective eras but after roughly 71 years of, putting it plainly, proving ineffective on this particular case to which I am referring, why not shake things up and try one of these new tricks one of we young dogs hashed out for himself?

I suddenly feel pretentious because it's occurred to me that since I am posting in the Dorothy Forstein forum thread, most readers probably made a foregone conclusion that yes, with an almost 100% degree of certainty, that is the case about which I will have been tooting my own horn for 3 paragraphs by this point. Fine, I am an idiot in many more ways than I am wise, and yes, that is the case I believe I may have solved: the EXTREMELY unsettling, bizarre, ghoulish kidnapping of Dorothy Forstein.

Mrs. Forstein was last seen horizontal in a state of poor health on her bedroom floor by her 9-year-old daughter, who'd awoken because she 'wasn't sure if she heard voices' immediately before a man she'd never seen in a brown peaked cap and brown jacket unlocked the house's front door, ascended the stairs, told the girl to return to bed as he passed by on the way to her mother's room, knelt, scooped up then draped Dorothy over his shoulder, rose, passed back by the girl whose head he patted as he called her 'little one' and gently told her to return to bed, descended the stairs without leaving a single fingerprint not traceable to residents of the house, exited by the same door through which he'd entered, which he then re-locked, before scuttering off into the dark of the late PM hours of a Philadelphia autumn night, the grisly and heavy burden of Dorothy Forstein hoisted to eye level upon his shoulder; investigators said since the beginning this is a conspicuous method by which to transport a drugged or incapacitated kidnapping victim, and a method which in a large, densely populated city like Philadelphia would almost certainly have been witnessed by someone had the mother-snatching villain attempted to transport her any appreciable distance from the location of the crime: 1835 Franklin Street, the home Dorothy shared, until the night of October 18th, 1949, with husband Jules, 2 of his children from a previous marriage, and within a short time of having been married, 1 child of their own.

This same address had been the location of a previous extremely violent crime perpetrated against Dorothy Forstein on January 26th, 1945, by a person unknown, for unknown reasons, when she was alone or at least when Jules was atypically not present well into the evening hours this particular day. The only witness to see Dorothy in the minutes immediately preceding the crime was a neighbor who said she thought she saw a man walking close enough behind Dorothy that she had the impression the man was walking with her. Oddly enough, Dorothy claimed as well as she could at the time and then much later that her attacker had sprung out at her from the shadowy darkened nook underneath the stairs by the 1st floor hallway telephone so swiftly and overwhelmingly that Dorothy could provide no description at all.

Nobody seems to have pointed out the contradictions in the stories of Dorothy and the witness. If the witness is correct and a man was walking extremely close to Dorothy in the moments immediately preceding her entrance to the house, then why did Dorothy not mention his presence later, or scream for his help given the potentially fatal situation into which she almost immediately walked? If this man was the attacker, then he would have attacked from Dorothy's rear as she opened the door. It does not seem possible that this man could wait for Dorothy to open the door, slip past her unnoticed, hide himself in the phone nook, then emerge and attack her while remaining unidentified by her from start to finish. Dorothy stated definitively that the attacker emerged from the phone nook and that she could provide no description at all. The attacker was in such close proximity to Dorothy that I do not think her claim of not seeing anything is legitimate and honest. She is very certain of from where he emerged and hence the angle from which he attacked from the shadows, but she is unable to provide a height, body type, voice description, outfit, etc.?

I think that Dorothy actually knew the man who attacked her on January 26th, 1945. I think that is why she and he were walking in such close proximity to one another before the attack that the witness stated she believed they were walking together. I think that this man - who Dorothy knew - violently attacked her from behind almost at the moment she opened the front door because he knew with a great amount of certainty that Jules and the children were not in the house to see or hear the attack occur because either Dorothy had just told him or he had some other way of learning the family's routines and movements. I think that Dorothy created the story of the phone nook attacker:

- because she was in a state of shock which would now be diagnosed as PTSD;
- because of the physical and psychological effects of the attack itself;
- because she had not expected the acquaintance to do as inconceivable a thing as he'd done;
- because she wanted to conceal that she knew or had been with that person, who then violently attacked her, for an as yet undetermined reason.

At this sort of natural intermission point, I will offer my pure opinion that when middle-aged, married adults meet alone with an adult of the opposite gender who is specifically NOT the spouse to who they are married in an ideal union, and furthermore when these adults endeavor to conceal from said spouse the specific meeting or even their awareness of the other adult's existence, those adults are typically engaging in extramarital affairs or some other arrangement which would result in such controversy that keeping secret the identity of your attempted murderer from police investigators and your husband seems preferable to revealing his identity so that he can be arrested and you can once again feel safe and secure in your own home.

I am sorry for building the suspense like this but it is all flowing very naturally, better than I hoped it would, and I promise the conclusion will be immensely satisfying and well worth your patience!!!

 

[bearfossils]

I find it odd that only his first wife is listed on his find a grave. Zero mention of Dorothy.
She's been completely erased. Who would do that,and why?

“I believe these killers are best described as eraser killers, because that term describes simply and succinctly both their motives and their methods. Their victims are not ‘missing women’ or ‘vanished wives’. They are women who have been erased, just as repressive political regimes have used the method of ‘forced disappearances’ to dispose of their enemies and strike terror into all those who oppose them. The impact of so many women being ‘erased’ or ‘disappeared’, from our very midst, from homes and communities we assumed to be ‘safe’, is overwhelming in its magnitude and undermines so many of the fundamentals of which our trust and sense of security is based. These eraser killers exploit the safeguards built into our legal system — principles enshrined in our constitution to protect honest citizens from unreasonable searches of their property and from being forced or coerced into making a false confession — as if those honored protections were simply escape hatches built to provide safe haven for someone capable of pulling off an expert murder.”
— Marilee Strong, Erased

Just some food for thought.

 

[scoobamang]

I concluded my last post by boldly asserting my opinion that Dorothy Forstein knew the man who assaulted her the evening of January 26th, 1945. I boldly assert now, at the beginning of this post, that this was the same man who hoisted her onto his shoulder and seemingly vanished with his victim into the ether on the evening of October 18th, 1949. This was of course subsequent to him patting 9-year-old witness Mallory Forstein, Jules' daughter from his first marriage, on the head before descending the stairs and locking the front door behind him, presumably negotiating the locking maneuver while toting an incriminating 100-150 pound load on his shoulder.

If this person was sufficiently cold-hearted and emotionless, or to put it frankly, evil to be capable of carrying off a mother (well, step-mother) in front of her awake and alert 9-year old daughter (well, step-daughter), then the act of locking the front door in order to keep the children secure and safe from dangerous intruders seems incongruous at best. A few reasons come to mind to explain his locking the door. Had Jules Forstein been home, the locked behind door could have indicated that his wife left of her own free will. This theory is quashed by the fact that her money, purse, keys, small personal belongings, etc. were left in the house. This caused the police to rule out robbery as a motive. Because Jules Forstein was according to his own statements out at a political fundraiser, that narrows down the list of reasons considerably. The villain seemingly knew the children were home alone, hence the reason he chose that date and time to take Dorothy and his almost casual and matter of fact behavior during the commission of the crime. I feel these factors totally eliminate the theory that the kidnapping was intended to look like a voluntary disappearance on Dorothy's part.

The most obvious and in my opinion only other conceivable reason to lock the door behind him would be to ensure the children inside, Mallory, 9 and Edward, 2, remained safely inside until the return of their father, Jules, roughly 15 minutes later. For now I will not speculate as to why a psychotic mommy-snatcher would be so very conscientious about the safety of the children (1 of them a step-child) of the woman who he just toted off into the void right in front of Mallory's disbelieving eyes. Is it possible that Jules had arranged with some criminal contractor to perform the kidnapping but not harm, or allow any harm to come to, the children? Is it possible Jules left the political banquet a bit earlier than he stated and costumed himself so effectively that Mallory stated she had 'never seen the man before', nor recognize his voice? Sure, lots of things are possible, but at this point the only overall theory on which I would be willing to bet money is that for whatever reason, the perpetrator:

- DID NOT want to harm the children since they were alone and unprotected yet survived unharmed in any physical manner;

- DID NOT want the children to meet with harm even from an errant criminal stranger checking front doorknobs around 11 P.M. This shows a degree of concern beyond a lack of desire to hurt them. He took the extra effort and most importantly, time, to retrieve the key from his pocket, turn slightly on the front stoop while balancing his human-weight load on his shoulder, insert the key, turn it, re-pocket the key and then scoot off into the shadows never to be seen again. That strikes me as an extremely risky extra bit of care to take and I cannot think of another reason for which he would lock the door.

It certainly wasn't to leave a sort of metaphorical criminal calling card, a la 'The Wet Bandits' of Home Alone who famously plugged the drains of the running sinks in the homes they burgled. Actually now that I think of it, Daniel Stern's character did it on his own and Joe Pesci's character was furious because of the unnecessary attention it would draw. I feel I may have digressed.

It appears the villain never planned to be identified. As of 2021 I assert that he is an expert planner because the fruits of his meticulous series of heinous and mystifying actions has left us with 70+ years of false leads, ambiguity as to whether Dorothy actually died, and of greatest importance a list of 0 suspects kept and updated as necessary by Philadelphia Police detectives, meaning never;

- DID know, intimately, at least one member of the family. Whoever you are, pore back over your life. Any time you voluntarily handed a key to your own front door to another person, can't you truthfully say that was a person you trusted implicitly not to come and go with nefarious intent? Wasn't that person a relative or a friend of such high standing that they were trusted maybe more than a few (or the whole traitorous, motley bunch) members of your own family? Apartment residents and, come to think of it, the moneyed elite do have to consider the possibility of the Orkin man or any menial house-tending service worker sneaking in with a key copy entrusted to the licensed and bonded enterprise for which they work. I feel the Philadelphia Police would have immediately applied their most rigorous investigating to the people with keys, and no record I've found indicates that ever occurred, which leads me to hypothesize there was no group of favored, key-holding service workers.

Furthermore, and speaking from personal experience here, a significant majority of those service workers are decent moral people performing demoralizing, back-breaking labor for an honest day's pay, and the last thing they desire after scrubbing and spraying an impressively sized house would be to return there after 11 PM, carry off the lady of the house they'd previously drugged by some cunning, undiscovered method, then carry off the hundred-something pound load after a long day, week, life, etc. of low-paid hard labor during the daylight hours. If the person was one of the small number of service workers willing and vicious enough to use their position of trust to deprive their employers of wages they feel they ought to have coming anyway, then why carry off a bulky, awkward woman in bright red pajamas and slippers, but leave her cash-filled purse? I speculate there would then be a host of other problems like what to do with the person if they are alive, whether to murder them to eliminate the witness to your deeds, what to DO with the person once they regain consciousness, how to then keep them quiet and inconspicuous to neighbors, HOW to finally profit from the preposterous scenario, and quite importantly HOW to transport your human-weight, human-size, awkward human-shaped, red-pajamas-clad load to the slum across town? - or at least away from the neighborhood where a judge resides in a handsome 3-story house because, logically, the poorly-paid service worker would be earning only enough wages to afford a home nowhere near the neighborhood from which Dorothy vanished. I theorize that a service worker desperate enough to burgle their employer for the cash on hand in the house would not be in a financial position to buy or own a vehicle, meaning this would all be done on foot, or by public transportation or, if you buy into this sort of thing, magic. I should mention here that I do buy into magic, however do not feel it was the MOD (Manner of Disappearance) in this particular case.

I know that this particular post has essentially been one long and thorough assertion that the key-holding kidnapper did know at least one member of the family, did possess a key, and for a reason which I confidently assert was to secure the children inside did re-lock the door because there is more logic to support this reason than any other. I feel that all of these points have already essentially been made, if not in these exact words, by other investigators and writers who studied the case.

The remainder of this post, in which I effectively dismiss any street-urchin or lower class perpetrator being a likely suspect is an aspect of the case that has not been discussed whatsoever as far as I can tell. I have never read a single document mentioning the Forstein's employing a service worker. I dismissed this theory at such length because, as Sherlock Holmes once stated, if we eliminate the impossible then the only thing which will remain is the possible.

What we have to go on so far is that this Dorothy-grabbing-ghoul did, beyond a reasonable doubt in my mind at least, have a key to the Forstein home. Think of whatever other persons would be likely to have a key to the Forstein household. I could only think of service workers, and perhaps close relatives like the parents or siblings of either Jules or Dorothy. I am happy to consider all possibilities if they occur to other forum members, but this does not seem like a thing that an immediate family member would typically do, and the reason they would have for doing such a thing is even more difficult to imagine. This left only the potential service workers, again who I have no proof whatsoever even exist nor more importantly had keys to the home.

SO, with that potential suspect list eliminated to my satisfaction, let us turn our attentions to the remaining suspects.

These suspects, whoever they are, MUST HAVE HAD A KEY TO THE FORSTEIN HOME, and are not among the two separate groups I identified above. The Philadelphia police themselves have said they have never been able to identify a single viable suspect.

Well guess what, Philly PD? I have!

Tune in for the next post, folks.

 

[agapoyesoun]

“I believe these killers are best described as eraser killers, because that term describes simply and succinctly both their motives and their methods. Their victims are not ‘missing women’ or ‘vanished wives’. They are women who have been erased, just as repressive political regimes have used the method of ‘forced disappearances’ to dispose of their enemies and strike terror into all those who oppose them. The impact of so many women being ‘erased’ or ‘disappeared’, from our very midst, from homes and communities we assumed to be ‘safe’, is overwhelming in its magnitude and undermines so many of the fundamentals of which our trust and sense of security is based. These eraser killers exploit the safeguards built into our legal system — principles enshrined in our constitution to protect honest citizens from unreasonable searches of their property and from being forced or coerced into making a false confession — as if those honored protections were simply escape hatches built to provide safe haven for someone capable of pulling off an expert murder.”
— Marilee Strong, Erased

Just some food for thought.

I'm not sure why her husband would have had her name on his headstone if he was unsure of her demise. It's a terribly curious case. I wish that the family had answers.

 

[agapoyesoun]

Your loved one, Dorothy, is not forgotten.

 

[agathaholmes79]

Really sad to read about this unsolved mystery.
since I just stumbled across this story, I am not aware of all the information or facts.

A few things are odd. How do we know they had a good marriage? And how did they meet? After all, this was his second marriage. Why did his first marriage fail? Any violence?

Maybe Dorothy and Jules had martial issues and not wanting a divorce to pay alimony, it was easier to murder. But why have Dorothy's remains never been found?

How was Jules confirmed at work the night he worked late and called Dorothy at home? Seems convenient. And the timing in which he laid out was confirmed to be true by whom? How do we know he even called at the time he said he called?

The assault in '45 bothers me. Dorothy suffered great physical injury in that attack. Were there hospital records for Dorothy of previous injuries she might be sustained? And her injuries seem personal.

If Morris Anmuth did commit the attack on Dorothy, what proof was there and what happened during those 4 or 5 years between the attack and disappearance - where was Morris Anmuth?

Personally, I would look at the bigger picture and if other similar crimes had been reported. To carry someone on your shoulder, you must bench press lots! My arms get tired carrying my dog.
It is plausible that their daughter actually saw more than what she reported to police.
If she saw her mother being taken or beaten, her likely conclusion is that she will lose her Dad too. Maybe she protected her father?? What physical descriptions did she give of this man to police? was a sketch ever done of the man who took Dorothy?

And what happened to the children in the years following Dorothy's disappearance? Did they have healthy or existent relationships with their father? Did they turn to alcohol or drugs or have addictions? Maybe PTSD.

What we know now from the past with law enforcement is that they took a husband's word at face value, perhaps also due to this career and position. And we know that usually the last person to see the victim or was with the victim prior to death is a suspect until ruled out. And most victims know their attackers....

My thoughts to the family.

 

[Quoththeraven]

Very strange story and no pictures. What I find hard to understand is the daughter seeing her mother lying face down as the man was coming up the stairs, so was she was already dead or maybe given poison, or better still sleeping pills. (poison would have probably made her sick and she could have called for help.

Did the husband have a girl friend? Didn't her family get involved? It is true that in the 40's life was very different than today, We really know nothing,

View attachment 105300

Yes, it's odd she was already incapacitated on the floor when the man came up the stairs. I wonder what the time period was between the time her husband left and the phone call and when the daughter saw her lying on the floor.

 

[Quoththeraven]

We do know that Magistrate Jules Forstein was Jewish.

Jules Forstein (1906-1956) - Find a Grave...

We also know that several months earlier two anti-Semitic Philadelphia policemen severely beat a Jewish man outside a police station (19 Sep 1944). The case was assigned to Magistrate Jules Forstein.

Then, Forsteins wife was also severely beaten (26 Jan 1945). The attached article states that the man who beat her wanted the Magistrate to sign a copy of the charge for a "friend" who was in jail.

Then, several months later, both the policemen and the Jewish man were acquitted by another (non-Jewish) judge, (24 May 1945), who was now handling the case and states (in the attached article) that Judge Jules Forstein should have stopped the case in his court.

It appears that if someone was capable of severally beating a man because he was Jewish and make remarks like "It is because of your kind that we are in this war" and "If this were Germany we wouldn't beat you. We would kill you", then I would think they, or someone of like mindset, would have no problem beating the wife of the Jewish judge to intimidate him. (see article)

Was antisemitism the reason this hot potato case had a change of venue to yet a third judge and all charges were dropped? Even the Assistant City Solicitor James Ryan made an anti-Semitic remark.

Other news articles note that Judge McBride is a Democrat and Judges Forstein and Fenerty are Republicans. The last article shows that the judge was remarried and it seems that the children were needing protection from something.

Ancestry.com shows that the judge married Dorothy Cooper in 1942. That was after the death of his first wife, Molly Melaten Forstein 2 Jul 1940, who, I believe, died in childbirth. Dorothy was reported missing by her husband on Thursday, two days after her disappearance on Tuesday.

It appears that his wife Dorothy was still beneficiary at the time of his death.

Name: Dorothy Forstein
Marriage Date: 1942
Marriage Place: Philadelphia, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA

 

[Quoththeraven]

It was odd she was lying on the floor on her face before the man entered the room. Another article stated she appeared dazed and offered no resistance as she was picked up. Then the husband comes home 15 minutes later? He then waits two days before reporting her missing?

Another version from The Knoxville Journal 18 Oct 1953, Sun Page 43, stated that the daughter heard voices and went from her room to her mother's room. The other article states she heard the door open downstairs and saw a man come up and go into her mother's room. It also said that her husband, upon finding her missing, immediately called his friend, Detective Kelly.

She was declared legally dead in 1957

 

[Vern]

We do know that Magistrate Jules Forstein was Jewish.

Jules Forstein (1906-1956) - Find a Grave...

We also know that several months earlier two anti-Semitic Philadelphia policemen severely beat a Jewish man outside a police station (19 Sep 1944). The case was assigned to Magistrate Jules Forstein.

Then, Forsteins wife was also severely beaten (26 Jan 1945). The attached article states that the man who beat her wanted the Magistrate to sign a copy of the charge for a "friend" who was in jail.

Then, several months later, both the policemen and the Jewish man were acquitted by another (non-Jewish) judge, (24 May 1945), who was now handling the case and states (in the attached article) that Judge Jules Forstein should have stopped the case in his court.

It appears that if someone was capable of severally beating a man because he was Jewish and make remarks like "It is because of your kind that we are in this war" and "If this were Germany we wouldn't beat you. We would kill you", then I would think they, or someone of like mindset, would have no problem beating the wife of the Jewish judge to intimidate him. (see article)

Was antisemitism the reason this hot potato case had a change of venue to yet a third judge and all charges were dropped? Even the Assistant City Solicitor James Ryan made an anti-Semitic remark.

Other news articles note that Judge McBride is a Democrat and Judges Forstein and Fenerty are Republicans. The last article shows that the judge was remarried and it seems that the children were needing protection from something.

Ancestry.com shows that the judge married Dorothy Cooper in 1942. That was after the death of his first wife, Molly Melaten Forstein 2 Jul 1940, who, I believe, died in childbirth. Dorothy was reported missing by her husband on Thursday, two days after her disappearance on Tuesday.

It appears that his wife Dorothy was still beneficiary at the time of his death.

Name: Dorothy Forstein
Marriage Date: 1942
Marriage Place: Philadelphia, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA

That does explain a couple of things:

Dorothy disappeared without a trace, thus could not be declared legally dead until 7 years passed since she was last known alive;

Julius dies 6 years after her disappearance, thus the estate reverts to his still-legal and undeclared deceased wife - Dorothy;

Dorothy's brother is named trustee of the estate as the children are still legal minors at the time of Julius' death;

Judge assures the children he will follow the estate to ensure they are not taken advantage of before they are able to have Dorothy declared deceased and inherit the estate themselves.

Also explains why Dorothy's name does not appear on Julius' headstone too. I do find it interesting that Julius never filed for divorce from Dorothy as he well could have and that, combined with the beating case angle from the articles you've linked, gives me a feeling that he actually wasn't involved.

But, how to explain the perps entrance into their house??

 

[Quoththeraven]

That does explain a couple of things:

Dorothy disappeared without a trace, thus could not be declared legally dead until 7 years passed since she was last known alive;

Julius dies 6 years after her disappearance, thus the estate reverts to his still-legal and undeclared deceased wife - Dorothy;

Dorothy's brother is named trustee of the estate as the children are still legal minors at the time of Julius' death;

Judge assures the children he will follow the estate to ensure they are not taken advantage of before they are able to have Dorothy declared deceased and inherit the estate themselves.

Also explains why Dorothy's name does not appear on Julius' headstone too. I do find it interesting that Julius never filed for divorce from Dorothy as he well could have and that, combined with the beating case angle from the articles you've linked, gives me a feeling that he actually wasn't involved.

But, how to explain the perps entrance into their house??

Total assets were around 15K, with the majority, 9K, in Dorothy's safety deposit box. As far as the perp gaining access to the front door, Dorothy was pretty paranoid since the beating so I'd almost assume she had it locked while her husband was away. He had to have had a key to get in. Marcy said he went directly to her mother's room where she saw her lying face down when she came in to the bedroom. Either she was drugged, fainted or was knocked out because she didn't resist or fight when she was picked up.

I believe this was planned since the husband just happened to be away that night and the perp knew exactly where to go when he got upstairs. It's possible the judge was involved or this was done to retaliate in a case he had been a judge in or it was done to sway his judgement in a current case. The man who beat her years earlier told her he wanted the judge to sign a copy of a charge for a friend who was in jail, whatever that means. I still think dirty cops were involved and the one who beat her was possibly one of the same ones who beat the Jewish heckler.

 

[Vern]

Total assets were around 15K, with the majority, 9K, in Dorothy's safety deposit box. As far as the perp gaining access to the front door, Dorothy was pretty paranoid since the beating so I'd almost assume she had it locked while her husband was away. He had to have had a key to get in. Marcy said he went directly to her mother's room where she saw her lying face down when she came in to the bedroom. Either she was drugged, fainted or was knocked out because she didn't resist or fight when she was picked up.

I believe this was planned since the husband just happened to be away that night and the perp knew exactly where to go when he got upstairs. It's possible the judge was involved or this was done to retaliate in a case he had been a judge in or it was done to sway his judgement in a current case. The man who beat her years earlier told her he wanted the judge to sign a copy of a charge for a friend who was in jail, whatever that means. I still think dirty cops were involved and the one who beat her was possibly one of the same ones who beat the Jewish heckler.

I agree that the perp had obtained/had been given a key and a layout. That is the only thing that makes sense. I gave it some more thought today and came to the conclusion, based on everything we do know [and my own head space & timing] lol, that hubby must have been involved. I've explained away, in my brain again, that he didn't divorce her because that would not have "looked good" for a judge given she was officially "only missing" and that his intent was to have her declared deceased after 'the respectable' 7 year missing period - then ALL would be his to do with what he wished. He just didn't plan on dieing himself before that 7 years had elapsed.

That 15K in 1949 is equivelent to ~ 180K today so definitely serves as a viable motive to disappear her.

 

[Quoththeraven]

I agree that the perp had obtained/had been given a key and a layout. That is the only thing that makes sense. I gave it some more thought today and came to the conclusion, based on everything we do know [and my own head space & timing] lol, that hubby must have been involved. I've explained away, in my brain again, that he didn't divorce her because that would not have "looked good" for a judge given she was officially "only missing" and that his intent was to have her declared deceased after 'the respectable' 7 year missing period - then ALL would be his to do with what he wished. He just didn't plan on dying himself before that 7 years had elapsed.

That 15K in 1949 is equivalent to ~ 180K today so definitely serves as a viable motive to disappear her.

She did have more money than he did at the end of the day. Maybe the perp still had the key and layout from the beating? It's also possible that the plans were to get rid of her in the first beating but she didn't die as planned. Even the cops said it was an attempted murder.

Looking at our current political scene, anything is possible, I guess. The stories get more outlandish each day. Being rich and famous is now a liability. Most politicians or their families don't make it to the end of their careers without being destroyed in some fashion. Of course, it's now fashionable to remain a politician into your 80's and 90's, even if you're brain dead. Even voters are now being targeted for who they vote for.

 

[swedepete]

This case is certainly one of the strangest together with those of Maura Murray, Paula Welden, Joan Risch and a few others. Looking at the Dorothy Forstein case, I believe that the husband, Judge Jules Forstein, likely was the evil mastermind behind it all. Who else could have realistically provided the intruder with a house key? How could the intruder have known that Judge Forstein and his eldest, adult daughter would be out of the house this particular evening? And let´s not forget that Jules Forstein and the then chief of the Philadelphia Homicide Dept, Captain James Kelly, apparently had been life-long friends! The handling of this case was likely badly corrupted from the very start considering the close friendship between Kelly and Forstein.....It frankly stinks!

 

[Mfleish]

I just came across this case so I did a little digging. Has this article been mentioned at all? I haven't been able to find a follow up regarding the blood test results.
It is the Delaware County Times, October 25, 1949, page 2, if the link doesn't work.

https://newscompa.newspapers.com/image/53207414/?terms=Dorothy%20Forstein&pqsid=7H2DJdEaclaoocoEBJZAZA%3A41000%3A814906633