A notorious murder case from decades ago is back in the spotlight after a social media comment questioned the handling of one of its most controversial pieces of evidence — the bloody cashmere glove introduced at Carolyn Warmus‘ 1992 trial.
Warmus, once dubbed the “Fatal Attraction Killer”, was convicted of second-degree murder in the 1989 shooting death of Betty Jeanne Solomon, the wife of her lover, Paul Solomon. While prosecutors argued the glove directly tied Warmus to the crime scene, critics, both then and now, say the item’s late appearance and murky chain of custody raise serious doubts about its reliability.
Warmus case: “A comedy satire of errors”
The comment that sparked renewed discussion, comparing the investigation to “a comedy satire of errors,” was made in response to Carolyn Warmus and the Fatal Love Triangle, a new documentary about the case, available on YouTube.
The writer accused police of procedural missteps, such as allowing Paul Solomon to wash his hands shortly after the murder and mishandling the glove itself. They also noted that the glove’s late discovery meant “a good defense attorney could have attacked the chain of custody even in the second trial.”
The bloody glove’s controversial timeline
After watching "the Fatal attraction murder" I'm 100% convinced Paul Solomon killed his wife and the fumbling police helped him get away with it by telling him to wash his hands and losing a glove. Carolyn Warmus was framed and her life was taken. She was denied DNA request.
— Twilight Usagi Bloom (@blunt_b1tch3) April 26, 2022
In the actual timeline of the case, the glove did not surface during Warmus’s first trial in 1991, which ended in a mistrial. Instead, it appeared months later, allegedly found by Solomon in a closet at his home. Prosecutors said it matched a glove photographed at the original crime scene and contained fibers consistent with those on the victim’s hands.
Defense attorneys countered that the glove’s origin was suspicious. Because Warmus had been to Solomon’s home many times before the murder, they argued the glove could have been left there long beforehand or planted.
The fact that Solomon “found” the glove on his own, outside official police searches, meant there was no clear, documented chain of custody from the time of the murder to the courtroom.
The social media commenter took this suspicion further, theorizing that Solomon initially kept the glove to protect Warmus but later turned it over to the police after their relationship soured, possibly when he began seeing another woman.
Why the chain of custody matters
In criminal trials, the chain of custody is the documented record that tracks the handling of physical evidence from the moment it is collected until it is presented in court. If that chain is broken — for example, if an item is found by a private individual months later without oversight — it opens the door to allegations of contamination, tampering, or planting.
In Warmus’s case, the court ultimately allowed the glove into evidence, and jurors were instructed to weigh disputes about its ownership and discovery. Warmus was convicted and served 27 years in prison before being paroled in 2019.
Ongoing DNA testing could change the narrative
In 2021, the Westchester County District Attorney’s Office agreed to DNA-test the glove, along with other evidence from the crime scene. Warmus’s legal team hopes modern forensic analysis will show her DNA is absent and possibly identify another suspect. The status of that testing is unclear.
If DNA results contradict the prosecution’s original narrative, the glove could go from being the symbol of her guilt to a key element in efforts to clear her name, supporting long-standing theories, including the one recently revived on social media.
For now, the glove remains a flashpoint in one of New York’s most infamous love-triangle murder cases, and the debate over its origin continues to captivate true-crime followers more than three decades later.
