For several years, a set of letters and envelopes allegedly sent from Jeffrey Dahmer to a pen pal in Sweden have circulated online and fallen onto the ‘murderabilia’ market.

Compared to the many verified examples of Dahmer’s correspondence, however, these letters are fraught with red flags which undermine their authenticity.

From handwriting discrepancies to content which betrays the nature of Dahmer’s personality and life in prison – as well as issues with postmarks and stamps – this article provides a detailed breakdown of why these letters are best avoided: both as part of the official Dahmer narrative and as potential additions to any true crime artifact collection.

Based on long-term research, personal experiences (good and bad) with collecting, and insights provided by people who’ve been active in the community for decades (including old school dealers, direct correspondent’s of Dahmer’s, and those with law enforcement or forensic backgrounds) all intent is to investigate,not glorify Dahmer or commodify his crimes.

---

For as long as the public has been intrigued by murder, there has been a certain interest in obtaining tokens of its aftermath and perpetrators.

Shell casings and shattered glass from Bonnie and Clyde’s death car were scavenged by souvenir hunters on the Louisiana road which drew the couple’s story to its bullet-ridden conclusion – while the more brazen among the crowd clamoured for bloodied clothing and Clyde Barrow’s left ear.

In 18th-century France, witnesses to the execution of Louis XVI claimed that, after the blade of the guillotine had fallen, spectators rushed the scaffold to dip their handkerchiefs in royal blood.

Meanwhile, in present-day London, a multi-storey museum dedicated to the story of the Whitechapel murders offers visitors the chance to purchase a ‘Jack the Ripper-style’ top hat from its gift shop. 

This widespread appetite for the macabre has allowed the murderabilia industry to find its market.

‘Murderabilia’ (memorabilia related to murderers or those who commit particularly heinous crimes) includes paintings by John Wayne Gacy; letters sent from Ted Bundy to pen pals and lawyers; dirt from the Plainfield farm site of Ed Gein; and (in 2023) the front door of California’s 10050 Cielo Drive, where actress Sharon Tate and her friends had been murdered by the Manson Family. The startlet’s blood – used by one of the killers to scrawl the word PIG -had been wiped off before auction.

The selling of such items has, unsurprisingly, been met with severe backlash over the years.

However, while some may collect murderabilia for the sake of shock value, for many, such items are of real historical importance. True crime artifacts can tangibly enhance the study of a case, and documents like prison letters can provide insight into their author’s mind, crimes, or incarceration. Regardless of if the original copy makes it into one’s personal collection.

As one of the most infamous figures in history, Jeffrey Dahmer has long been one of the most sought-after names in the world of murderabilia. But as with any popular collectable – even in a relatively niche market – the more valuable the name, the greater the incentive to forge it – and for potential buyers to recognise fake ‘heavy hitters’ before dropping some serious money.

Why does it matter though?

Given the incendiary debate around murderabilia, a lot of people may be indifferent as to whether the type of individual who wishes to own such things gets ripped off or not. 

However, for the purpose of this piece, the focus is on letters rather than items with a direct link to homicide (like the Cielo Drive drive door, Armin Meiwes’ freezer, or George Zimmerman’s Kel-Tec).

For these reasons, it’s important to acknowledge duplicitous documents:

1. People deserve to get what they pay for

If someone purchases a Jeffrey Dahmer handwritten letter, that’s the item they expect to receive. The principle of an assumed transaction is why Trading Standards practices, and laws against fraud and counterfeit items, exist.

Even if a fake autograph or letter doesn’t turn into a legal case, their sale is against the rules of many online marketplaces which platform (and pride themselves on) authentic products.

It also sets a precedent which can lead to other items being faked outside of murderabilia – with the forger facing no consequences for their actions whilst still making money through them.

2. It impacts the study of a subject

While murderabilia can be controversial (even in the mid-90s, a proposed auction of Dahmer’s property was met with protest and ultimately abandoned), it remains a relevant sub-topic of interest when trying to understand the full scope of a case.

Adding false information to the story can taint its study and distort facts. Especially when already examining an individual as complex as Dahmer.

3. It’s morally objectionable

It could be argued that, if one is morally opposed to such things being sold, then it’s equally as repugnant to have someone pretend to be a convicted serial killer just to get paid for it. Especially in a case like Jeffrey Dahmer’s – where Dahmer himself cannot earn money from any items related to him on account of being long dead.

So there’s something to be said for examining any strange-looking letters before they enter the market or official narrative.

[ BACK ]

---

Exhibit N(ick)

The following letters and envelopes have been circulating the internet for some time – allegedly sent from Jeffrey Dahmer to a Nick Bergstorm in Sweden:

The various Nick documents: Two letters and three envelopes

In 2019, Letter 1 and its envelope were sold for $1200 via Facebook.

In 2025, Envelope 2 was listed elsewhere for around $2000.

Both letters have been posted on Reddit, TikTok, and various Dahmer-dedicated pages – so their sale and sharing has proven profitable and seemingly informative about his prison life.

However, closer scrutiny reveals multiple issues with each document, across every part of their anatomy.

Breaking down these reproductions is a good way to recognise the signs of others.¹

📝 A NOTE ON OWNERSHIP:

Even the most seasoned collectors can (and have) been ripped off before – almost like a rite of passage!

Sometimes fakes can be convincing and sold to someone who, though possessing a general interest in a case, may not be an expert on it – and who may overlook certain minutiae and contextual clues that a specialist researcher would pick up on. An expert on John Wayne Gacy, for example, will likely not possess the same level of Ted Bundy insight compared to someone who’s exclusively and extensively focused on Bundy.

Someone may make a purchase off the back of a convincing story and misplaced trust, or may be so excited to own a piece that they impulse buy without thinking – especially if it seems like they’ve hit a once-in-a-lifetime deal. Other people may obtain a fake when they’re quite new to the hobby, before developing more knowledge of the subject or how to detect forgeries.

Owning – and sometimes even passing on – a suspicious piece is not necessarily indicative of someone being complicit in a scam, and the following is an assessment of the documents themselves, not those who may own them.

[ BACK ]

---

Handwriting

The first – and most obvious – way to determine whether a Jeffrey Dahmer letter came from Jeffrey Dahmer is to look at the handwriting. 

Despite the varying quality of the images available, the five ‘Nick’ documents are conclusively from the same hand:

^{Cross-referenced writing on the Nick letters and envelopes shows matching handwriting}

Which means determining whether that hand belonged to Dahmer.

Dahmer had two types of script: a lavish cursive and a simple print.

As none of Nick’s documents are in cursive, it can be assumed they’re meant to mimic Dahmer’s print.

More examples of Dahmer’s print taken from letters and prison documents

However, there are several notable discrepancies between Dahmer’s ‘official’ print and the writing on Nick’s letters.

Some of which include:

• Dahmer’s capital I‘s typically have straight bars (serifs) while many of Nick’s are curved:

• Dahmer’s lowercase a‘s are squat and compact, ending with a flatbase rather than the tail repeatedly seen in Nick’s:

• The terminal on Dahmer’s F‘s are lower compared to the severe overarch of Nick’s:

• Dahmer’s capital D’s are rarely serifed—at most showing a slight, natural extension of the upper stroke from momentum—whereas Nick’s show repeated use of both upper and lower serifs when writing the word December, suggesting a lapse in imitation:

• Dahmer’s lettering is more consistent in its spacing, whereas Nick’s first letter – in particular – has examples of both overly-cramped and overly-spaced letters:

Spacial inconsistency is a red flag in forensic document analysis as it often reflects a forger trying to write in a style they don’t naturally use.

Volatility occurs when the writer becomes overly focused on letter shape, rather than fluidity; attempts to plot words over-precisely; or loses their flow due to hesitation and uncertainty.

As a forger essentially draws letters rather than writes them, this results in spacing errors when they are too focused on how a letter looks to rely on the inherent motor patterns that govern natural placement.

• The contained way Dahmer signs his first name also differs to the wide-set, open-lettered signatures on Nick’s:

Comparing individual letters pinpoints exactly why handwriting is amiss, though the general difference between Dahmer’s and Nick’s hands is apparent just at a glance:

^{Dahmer’s: Simple, stable, uniformed
Nick’s: Stylised, shaky, uneven}

Overall, Dahmer’s print is plainer, more compact, cleanly spaced, and straighter compared to the looser, more stylised, irregular lettering of Nicks’.

Consistent patterns, like the curved bars of Nick’s I‘s and the tails on his a‘s, are distinct staples of their authors hand – not just one-off or natural variations – which show they were not written by Jeffrey Dahmer.

Handwriting analysis is often sufficient when examining potential forgeries – especially when multiple letters to a single recipient don’t match the many verified examples of Dahmer’s writing to others.

However, if one overlooks the abundance of discrepancies (maintaining that handwriting can vary with mood or writing instrument) then assessing a letter’s content, and how it aligns with what’s known about Dahmer and his time in prison, offers another measure of authenticity.

[ BACK ]

---

Content and Contextual Clues

The letters to Nick read:

At a glance (particularly if viewed seperately) they may seem unremarkable.

However, much of what’s written doesn’t align with what’s known of Dahmer or his time in prison, and several points are worth examining more closely:

• Dahmer’s uncharacteristic enthusiasm towards “love and marriage”

• A discrepancy in disciplinary dates and rules

• The need to “get a(nother) letter off” so soon

• A curiosity about how someone got his contact info

• His “first letter from Sweden” claim

---

I.) Dahmer’s uncharacteristic enthusiasm towards “love and marriage”

🚩: ““Love and marriage” must be a wonderful experience. Good luck! … I hope you [two] are enjoying the natural beauty as you progress towards the wonderful wedding night.”

In an early interview, Dahmer laid out his apathy towards marrying and having a family of his own – largely due to his childhood experience around his bickering parents:

“It just didn’t seem like my parents really liked each other too much. It just made me feel on edge, unsure of the solidarity of the family… I decided early on I wasn’t ever going to get married ‘cause I never wanted to go through anything like that… [I] never was interested in, what seems to me, 99% of the population of the world is. Leading a family life, you know?”

– Dahmer talking to Dr. Smail in 1991

It was stance that hadn’t changed much since 1987, when – as part of a sentence completion test with Dr. Rosen – Dahmer wrote that:

A man who falls in love is a fool

When I think of marriage I’m glad I’m not married

– Extracts from Dahmer’s ’87 Sentence Completion Test

So to suddenly be gushing about someone else’s upcoming nuptials seems strangely out-of-line with his documented disdain towards the concept.

Love had never been intrinsic to Dahmer’s wants or needs – as he’d explained to former FBI agent, Robert Ressler:

RR: Had you met somebody whom you enjoyed, was compatible with you, and who would consensually set up living arrangements… Could you have done that? [Got rid of the body parts from previous victims and began a more conventional relationship]

JD: The person would have had to be totally compliant, willing to do whatever I wanted, and there just aren’t many people like that… And I wanted something right away.

– Ressler and Dahmer in ’92

His preference was for a live person who could be controlled, before settling for a body which could be posessed and copulating with corpses in an approximation of intimacy Dr. Fred Berlin described as a “love sickness.”

Dahmer had further admitted to Dr. Fosdal et al. that, before his arrest, he hadn’t been interested in serious relationships. His focus had been on one-night stands, where “the reason he didn’t want them to leave [afterwards] was so he could continue the sexual purposes with the body. Their utilitarian value to him was sexual.”²

Pressed by attorney Wendy Patrickus on whether he actually could love, Dahmer conceded: “I don’t know… The person who can love, I don’t think would do these things.”

When Patrickus wondered whether keeping Tony Sears’ head and genitals meant her client felt he still had a ‘companion’ and if – in some bizarre way – that meant he had loved Tony, Dahmer replied, “yeah, I could say that if I knew how to love, I would have loved him. [But] it was a matter of trying to preserve what I had left of him.”

Even a weekend spent with Jeremiah Weinberger – whom Dahmer also seemed particularly fond of – ended in murder. “The only motive that there ever was,” the killer later told Dateline, “was to completely control a person that I found physically attractive and keep them with me as long as possible. Even if it meant just keeping a part of them.”

In prison, his awkward attempts at connection had continued. After just three short letters to Jason Moss, Dahmer implored the teenager to let him know “when you’re ready to pursue a serious relationship.” That the bulk of their previous correspondence had consisted of Dahmer asking for magazine subscriptions, Polaroids of Jason, and complimenting the young mans ‘swimmers physique’ – while failing to even ask about Jason’s life and hobbies – didn’t seem to matter to Dahmer’s transactional brand of lust.

He then told a smitten female pen pal that, “you deserve happiness and love, but I can’t give that to you or anyone.”³

All of which presents the profile of a man unlikely to reach for the word “wonderful” when looking to describe the mutually affectionate, emotionally available circumstance of another guy.

While Dahmer had mentioned to Dr. Fosdal that it might’ve been “nice” to have a partner, his “ideal situation” (a home and regular lover) was still predicated on maintaining dominance. Even softer admissions (“he said he never went on a trip with another gay person [and] never met anyone who would do that with him“) revealed more about his isolation than a capacity for intimacy, and it would be reductive to treat such statements as evidence of any underlying romantic sensibility – especially when drugging, killing and keeping body parts stems from a radically different headspace than a lonely man just passively yearning for a boyfriend.

It further makes the idea of Dahmer suggesting love and marriage to be a “wonderful experience” glaring in its incompatibility with everything known about his worldview – and contradicts the core pathology of a desire rooted in posession, not affection.

While he routinely showed platonic affection towards female pen pals (nicknames like “my lovely summer orchid”, sending sonnets and song lyrics, signing off with “love and many hugs”) the actual phrasing of this exuberant note to Nick is also at odds with the much cooler way Dahmer would respond to men. Even those he was trying to solicit money or a ‘relationship’ from:

Compared to Dahmer’s usual tone towards other men (be it coldly calculated, modest and polite, or shamelessly direct), the amplified, overly sentimental, urgency-soaked tone of Nick’s letters is amiss

Additionally, the alliteratively overstated: “I hope you are enjoying the natural beauty as you progress towards the wonderful wedding night” sounds heavy-handed and saccharinely obscene – even from a man who once sent the entire first three verses of ‘A Picture of Me Without You’ to one of his gal pals.

But even with such questionable comments, let’s give ‘Dahmer’ the benefit of the doubt and assume he was just trying to be friendly, had a change of heart – particularly in light of his return to God – or was wistfully envisaging what it would feel like to experience normal human connection.

Perhaps we could also give the benefit of the doubt to…

[ BACK ]

---

II.) A discrepency in disciplinary dates and rules

🚩: “I will/might spend some time in the disciplinary block in December and I will not be allowed to write back when I’m in there.”

On November 17, 1993, ‘Dahmer’ tells Nick that he “will be spending some time in the disciplinary block in December.”

A few days later, on November 23, Dahmer tells Nick that he “might spend some time in the disciplinary block in December.” 

I will… I might…

Well, which is it, Jeffrey? Are you going to be in the damn disciplinary block or not?!

Dahmer did, in fact, spend some time in the disciplinary block.

On December 4, he wrote to regular pen pal Barbara:

“My Thanksgiving wasn’t so good; I hope that yours was. I answered a staff phone call while I was working in the gym… Now for the rest of December, I have to stay in the DS-I disciplinary cell.“

It was a message he’d repeated verbatim to another pen pal the same day – and another the day before:

Letters from Dahmer to multiple pen pals explaining his misbehaviour around Thanksgiving, December ’93

Though Thanksgiving in 1993 had fallen on November 23, Dahmer had actually been sentenced to the disciplinary a few days earlier.

In a letter he sent Missouri-based Bob at the start of the new year, Dahmer specified that he’d been “put in the discipline unit from Nov. 21st – Jan. 3rd because I got into some trouble.”

About two weeks later, Dahmer confirmed this trouble had been the phone call incident around Thanksgiving:

Prison records obtained by The Milwaukee Journal also cited Dahmer’s time in the DS-1 – though these note that he was there until January 6, after answering the call on November 18.

Regardless, both primary sources show that Dahmer was already in the disciplinary block in November –several days before he’d allegedly told Nick he “might” be going in there for December.

The chronological car crash of Nick’s correspondence suggests someone had seen at least one letter where Dahmer said he was writing from the DS-1 in December, had assumed he’d only been in there for that month, and added that detail into their own ‘Dahmer’ letters – not having seen Bob’s mail or the Journal‘s findings.

Another factor hindering their realism is Dahmer’s inconsistent certainty about being sent to the DS-1.

In reality, people tend to move from uncertainty to confirmation, yet Dahmer first tells Nick he will be placed in the DS-1, only to later say it might happen.

The timeline of his conviction moves backwards – out of step with how reprimands from prison staff would unfold – and suggests someone wasn’t keeping track of the narrative they were trying to create. This, considering the abundance of other red flags present in Nick’s letters, further highlights the laziness of their imitation.

Additionally, an inmate answering a phone call intended for a prison staffer would’ve been a huge breech of security and a brazen violation of prison protocol. Even if Dahmer wasn’t immediately put in the DS-1 (often requiring a quick due process), there likely would’ve been no doubt in his mind as to the severity of what he’d done and what the penalty was going to be for such grave misconduct.

‘Dahmer’ also tells Nick, twice, that he “will not be allowed to write back when I’m in there.”

This is undermined by the letters sent to Barbara and Mary, et al. – where Dahmer is not only clearly able to send letters from the DS-1, he explicitly states that writing will be limited because his supplies are restricted, not because it’s forbidden.

“In here, all I’m allowed to have is toiletries, 1 book, paper and a pen. I won’t be able to write to you again until January, because my writing supplies are restricted in here.”

– Dahmer to multiple pen pals, Dec. 1993

It’s only the ordering of Christmas cards which, he says, is not allowed – as ordering frivolous festive greetings is a privilege rescinded under punishment.

But maybe Dahmer just didn’t care enough about Nick to feel like he was going to talk to him in the disciplinary. Despite the fact he’d seemed physically unable to keep himself from writing before:

[ BACK ]

---

III.) The need to “get a(nother) letter off” so soon

🚩: “I’ll get a letter off in a few days. Take care Nick”

According to the dates on Nick’s letters and envelopes, Dahmer sent three letters to Sweden in roughly 16 days:

• 7th November (from postal mark – suggesting the accompanying letter was dated a few days prior)

• 17th November (in which he tells Nick he’ll “get a letter off in a few days”)

• 23rd November

Considering the speed with which Dahmer usually replied to his pen pals – and the general pace of prison mail – this seems like an excessive amount of letters to send one person in such a short period.

As someone who experienced the ebb and flow of Dahmer’s letters in real-time during their own correspondence with him (and who shares more of their thoughts on the Nick letters here) explained:

“Jeff wrote quite quickly to my first letter, if I recall… [But once] he took about 8 months to respond again!”

– A pen pal of Dahmer’s

Other letters to various people confirm Dahmer’s replies could often be slow or sparse – depending on how “hectic” he’d been finding things; if he was feeling particularly depressed or sick; or even if he’d had to wait to find a stamp.

One Catholic nun – who’d regularly sent him letters and money – reported “typewritten responses, perhaps once a month” in return.

^{Letters sent from Dahmer explaining a shortage in responses}

Dahmer had several regular pen pals whom he frequently wrote to at length, so the idea of pressingly needing keep Nick in the loop, when there were other people to talk to, is also out of character.

Particularly considering Dahmer never signed off with hollow promises to write again so soon just for the sake of it:

Examples of Dahmer’s usual sign-offs: straightforward, final, and without suggesting he’ll write again in a matter of days

There’s also the question of just what on earth – within the vacuum that was Dahmer’s life in cell #48 – he would possibly have to share with Nick in the few days since he last wrote to him?

Or why he’d be so desperate to “get another letter off” to a man whom – based on the context – was not someone Dahmer was attracted to; did not appear to be a benefactor whom Dahmer was thanking or trying to solicit; and did not appear to be assisting the inmate with any pressing concern.

Especially when the next letter to Nick was barely four paragraphs long, repeated the line about spending time in the disciplinary and, in fact, reads like Dahmer was replying directly to a letter that had been sent since his last one (“It’s good to hear from you again”).

Here the implication is that Dahmer sent a letter on the 17th, Nick replied, and Dahmer responded again by the 23rd – on a six-day timeline which defies the realities of international postage: where a letter from the USA to Europe (and vice versa) would’ve typically taken 7-14 days, even without the added delays of prison processing.

That Nick’s letters are unusually frequent; contradict Dahmer’s usual lack of urgency; suggest an implausibly fast turnaround; and present no motive for such rapid correspondence all points to something unnatural – like an attempt to create a scenario where Nick is Dahmer’s BFF.

In other words, it’s the kind of story one might craft to inflate their credibility or potential profit by posing as a cherished insider to an infamous killer they’ve never actually spoken to and don’t really know much about.

[ BACK ]

---

IV.) Curiosity about Contact Info

🚩: “You said that you got my address through more than one American pen pal. I would be interested in learning who these people are if you do not mind telling me.”

During his incarceration, Dahmer received letters and donations from all over the world.

The amount of mail that accumulated in his cell was so vast, his parents routinely took piles of it home with them – and over 500 letters were inventoried after his death alone.

Dahmer’s prison address was easy to find.

CCI was widely reported in the media and listed in public records.

Thousands of people wrote to Dahmer, and sometimes he wrote back:

So it seems a little unusual that Dahmer – well aware of his infamy – would question how someone obtained his not-so-secret, not-so-private prison address. Especially over a year into his sentence and two years after dominating global headlines.

Even if Dahmer were being cautious in an attempt to evade explotiation, the likelihood that several of his American pen pals had all known Nick is pretty low.

When Dahmer recieved his first letter from known murderabilia dealer Rick Staton in May 1993, he was informed that Rick had shared Dahmer’s address with two men outside the States:

However, Nick wasn’t part of this international collector trio, and Rick’s explanation came more from his affable enthusiasm and trust-building transparency than a need to address any real concern on Dahmer’s part.

In fact, Dahmer’s response⁴ to Rick’s letter made it perfectly clear he didn’t seem remotely bothered by Rick spreading his address around.

“From your letter, it sounds as if you have friends in far away places,” Dahmer wrote back – his only remark on the matter – before later signing off: “say hi to all your long-distance friends.”

Dahmer, after all, had a few of his own.

---

V.) First letter from Sweden

🚩: “Yours is the first letter I got from Sweden, but I have had a few from England.”

In the letter dated November 23rd, Dahmer tells Nick he has recieved a few letters from England – which aligns with known facts.

One of Dahmer’s biggest benefactors was based in Chelsea, London. He also corresponded with a young man in Camden, and had received at least one letter from Kensington-based author Brian Masters – along with numerous other British citizens who found reason to write to the Wisconsinite.

He then says Nick’s “is the first letter I got from Sweden.”

However, in April that same year, Dahmer had asked a European named Henke:

“How is the weather in Sweden?”

Six months before Nick’s supposed “first” letter from there.

But perhaps Dahmer had simply forgotten he’d already corresponded with someone in Sweden.

Perhaps he just wanted to make Nick (already in a committed relationship) feel special. Perhaps he was answering an enquiry about the first letter he’d ever received from Nick; one that could have arrived some time before Dahmer had initially replied to him, and long before Henke’s.

Or perhaps there are just one too many bizarre comments here – even for a man no stranger to the bizarre.

[ BACK TO CONTEXT ] [ BACK TO MAIN ]

---

Envelope

More clear-cut than assessing content, envelopes are another way to verify whether a letter is from Mr. Dahmer at CCI.

A certified prison envelope would typically include all – or most – of the following:

• Return address in the top-left corner:

Jeff [or] Jeffrey Dahmer [or] J.D #177252
Columbia Corr. Inst.
2925 Columbia Dr., Portage
Wi. 52901-0900

(or some slight variation of)

• Postmark corresponding with (or close to) the date marked on the letter and sent from Madison, WI or (less typically) Portage, WI

• Validpostage stamp/s covering domestic or international postage, as relevant (29c for domestic, upwards of 50c for international between 1992-94)

• Prison stamp stating that the letter has been “mailed from the Wisconsin prison system“

• Writing or typeface consistent with authentic examples of Dahmer’s

However, it’s worth noting:

1. Not every genuine Dahmer letter comes with an envelope

Sometimes letters and envelopes are sold individually to get more money from two seperate sales, or because a seller may wish to keep the letter but not its envelope (or vice versa). Other times, the original recipient may simply have lost or thrown the envelope away – not having considered what the value of such things could be years on.

2. Not every letter from CCI is marked with the Wisconsin prison stamp

3. If someone is determined to forge a letter, they may be determined to try and forge an envelope

Especially as envelopes require less handwriting to copy and no additional effort to try and emulate Dahmer’s ‘voice.’

*

All Nick’s envelopes have been addressed and carry various stamps.

However, there are multiple issues with each of them.

Handwriting

Wisconsin Prison Stamp

Cancellation Marks and Consistency

Postmark

Handwriting

Dahmer only occasionally used cursive on his prison envelopes. As the vast majority were in print, it’s this style which forgers typically attempt to copy onto their own ‘Dahmer’ envelopes.

Evidence that Nick’s writing fails to match this can be seen on letters like O, I, A, and P – as well as in the numbering:

^{Handwriting taken from Dahmer and Nick’s envelopes}

As with the letters, the differences between the writing on Nick’s envelopes and Dahmer’s indicate two distinct hands:

[ BACK ]

Wisconsin Prison Stamp

Inmates typically have their envelopes stamped with the hallmark of their current residence.

San Quentin inked The Night Stalker’s, while ‘STATE PRISON CORCORAN’ marked Manson’s.

Envelopes sent courtesy of Jeff Dahmer were often stamped:

The official prison stamp features bold, evenly spaced, straight block lettering. Smudging or uneven ink distribution may occur due to pressure during application, but the design itself remains consistent.

The prison stamp on Nick’s letters, however, is different:

^{Prison stamps from the Nick envelopes5}

Though one is partially obscured in the image to hand, it shares enough traits with the others to confirm all three use the same stamp:

Compared to the official stamp, the version on Nick’s envelopes is spindly, slanted, inconsistently sized, and many of its letters are cramped together haphazardly. The ink itself appears flaky and patchy on one, giving the impression that it could be rubbed away with a finger – and even the full stops are not as full as its genuine counterpart’s:

Various diagrams highlighting the difference between Dahmer’s prison stamp and Nick’s

Forging a stamp isn’t impossible.

A quick search for “how to forge a rubber stamp” yields dozens of tutorials, including a guide courtesy of Handmade Books and Journals.com:

Following the above method, even just a printed out photo of an envelope bearing the Wisconsin Prison Stamp would be enough to trace and provide basis for a forgery.

A final point of interest is that – when they were present – these stamps were printed on the back of Dahmer’s envelopes:

A selection of envelopes sent from Dahmer with the Wisconsin Prison System stamp on the back

As the prison stamp was meant to provide transparency to the recipient and not aid postal processing, CCI staff appeared careful not to interfere with address fields or postmarks – keeping the front of the envelope clean and discreet⁶.

So for not one, but all three, of the Nick envelopes to have this mark on the front – each placed at a similarly skewed angle on the left-hand side – veers from coincidence into a pattern which does not fit the conventions of Dahmer’s correspondence.

To borrow from Ian Fleming, creator of James Bond:

“Once is happenstance. Twice is coincidence. Three times, it’s enemy action.”

And anyone faking letters for clout or profit would be the enemy here.

^{Nick envelope with prison stamp on the front and verified Dahmer envelope stamped on the back}

[ BACK ]

Cancellation Marks and Consistency

To prevent postage stamps from being reused, the processing facility will void them with a block of wavy lines known as a cancellation stamp.

That one of Nick’s envelopes has its stamps torn off isn’t neccessarily suspicious in itself (many people like to collect stamps, particularly from overseas), but the other two remain intact and voided by five lines:

^{Cancellation stamps on Nick’s envelopes}

By contrast, the cancellation stamps on Dahmer’s prison mail have repeatedly shown seven lines:

Even a smaller postal mark doesn’t mean a smaller cancellation stamp:

Consistency is fundamental in postal operations, especially for a security-conscious fixed institution like prison.

At Columbia Correctional Institution, inmate mail would be processed through the same internal channels each week before being routed via Madison-area USPS machinery – which applied both cancellation stamp and postmark simultaneously.

Given the 7-line stamps across Dahmer’s verified envelopes, it can be determined that 7-line cancellations were standard for the facility processing CCI’s outgoing letters.

The 5-wave stamp on the Nick envelopes is therefore an objective anomaly which indicates they were not mailed through the same system – or even mailed at all.

The same 5-lined deviation also appears on an envelope allegedly sent from Dahmer to Jason Moss (most known for his fraught correspondence with John Wayne Gacy).

While the Moss envelope managed to slip onto display at a recent Serial Killer exhibition in Europe, its authenticity has also been undermined:

That Nick’s stamps share the same unusual cancellation mark as the Moss forgery also does not bode well for their legitimacy – and may indicate that the person responsible for the Moss envelope is also behind the Nick documents.

[ BACK ]

Postmark

Another key component of any envelope is its postmark.

Of the three Nick envelopes, only one bears a clearly visible postmark. The other two are faint to the point of near-erasure:

Regardless, it’s enough to compare them to Dahmer’s:

Across Dahmer’s envelopes, both postmark and cancellation stamp consistently match in tone and density – indicative of having been applied simultaneously in identical ink, as was standard for automated USPS machinery by the early 1990s.

They also sit side by side, with the postmarked date centred within its circle.

However, Nick’s envelopes show off-centre postmarks that are noticeably lighter than the cancellation lines beside them. This suggests they weren’t applied together, a deviation from postal norms that points toward fabrication.

^{Diagram showing the difference between Nick and Dahmer’s postmarks}

US federal laws prohibiting forged postmarks have existed long before 1993 and, to this day, constitute mail fraud.

It’s also illegal to forge handwriting attributed to celebrities or historical figures with intent to defraud buyers. False advertising laws likewise apply if someone tries to profit from the sale of a Jeffrey Dahmer letter not actually written by Jeffrey Dahmer.

However, forgery being illegal has never stopped people from doing it – and if someone is willing to break the law and lie about authorship to make a sale, they’re unlikely to be deterred by the criminality of forging postmarks on envelopes that were never mailed.

Because murderabilia is a relatively fringe market, it can embolden certain sellers to create fakes under the belief that they won’t be subject to the same level of scrutiny as mainstream auctioneers or more conventional artifact dealers.

Perhaps they’re even counting on the irony of someone feeling too embarassed to go to the police for issues with serial killer memorabilia.

[ BACK TO ENVELOPE ] [ BACK TO MAIN ]

---

A Second Opinion

To avoid tunnelling into subjectiveness or overlooking what more informed eyes may notice, it’s always worth getting a second opinion from someone else – particularly if they’ve been collecting such things for a long time; may have a background in forensics, police work or historical artifacts; or may even have corresponded with Dahmer directly.

One such person – who miraculously covered all three basis – was ‘Reece’⁷ from England, who had exchanged several letters with Dahmer in the early 90s.

Reece had also written to numerous other inmates, owns an extensive collection of murderabilia (including rare items from several of the world’s most infamous cases), has familial ties to art dealers and artists (through whom he learned a lot about forgeries and their detection from a young age), and works closely with a range of antiques unrelated to true crime.

Always excited to see more letters from the Milwaukee Cannibal, Reece had a lot to say about the collective ‘Nick’ correspondence:

“What do I make of those?

I have to say that, after looking at them carefully, I just believe they’re completely fake.

I believe handwriting can’t change so dramatically within one person’s range. There seems to be no pattern similarities to the handwriting examples I have, or in the other letters I’ve collected copies of over the years.

The envelope handwriting (which would be the one thing you could perhaps copy if you’d only seen the envelope) seems to be continued in the letters. But I do not believe that is Jeff’s writing. His actual [cursive] writing is hard to forge, whereas his envelope writing would be easier to copy. And to an unsuspecting buyer – potentially – it looks credible.

But taking it at face value:

The I that is written [on Nick’s letters] is completely different to any I have…

Jeff loops his I’s and loops his lower case g’s sometimes…

His capital T’s are unique…

As is his super odd capital E for ‘England.’

That always struck me as a very odd quirkiness to his writing psyche.

I don’t really like the way one envelope has the stamps removed, either. Who would do that if they actually got a letter from Jeff Dahmer? The [postmark] letter ink stamp is light. Hardly rocket science (or “rocket surgery” – as I prefer!) to get an ink stamp made, or to get one from someone in that particular post office to steal. Once that’s out in the public domain, that’s a problem. The ink wavy lines [of the cancellation stamp] would also be easy to make if you were artistically minded.

The stamp saying “this letter has been mailed from the Wisconsin prison system” also just doesn’t appear like mine:

^{Stamps from two of Reece’s Dahmer envelopes}

Or even like a proper “stamp”. It looks homemade somehow, not official.

The wording also just doesn’t seem like it’s from Jeff’s mind. It’s almost too ordered, too questioning (“I would be interested in hearing who these [pen pals] are… How do you say ‘until next time’ in Swedish?“), too knowledgeable (“I heard rumours about Sweden…”).

Also, their condition is terrible!

Anyone who actually wrote Jeff and got a reply would treasure these replies – as I did – and carefully house them in folders, or keep them in their original envelopes safely. These letters are creased, edged, badly folded, torn, and look as though they’ve been crinkled almost on purpose to give them age…

Where there’s money to be made the fakers get busy, [and] those Nick letters are trying too hard to be real.”

Reece had seen fake Dahmer items before.

Many such forgeries have fallen onto the market over the past few decades or been shared by collectors – at times complicit in the creation of their new ‘Dahmer’ piece, other times oblivious to the true nature of their purchase.

Some sketchy and fake Dahmer pieces from over the years

Reece went on to explain how his own lifelong passion for historical treasures had taught him a few things about true crime knock-offs:

“I’m the son of an art dealer and artist, and inherited my dad’s library and old books. The books I’ve always loved are the ones about fakes, so I’ve become very aware of what is right and wrong over the many years. Faking has been going on for, literally, centuries!

Whenever there is a valuable commodity, then fakes appear. It’s the way of the world and a process that has been attracting criminally-minded opportunists since the dawn of art history. I’d be surprised if there weren’t any [Dahmer] fakes floating around. It’s the same with Gacy. So many fakes, good and bad. Some are very very good, even!

That’s not to say they’re all completely worthless… Fakes themselves have an important part to play in the history of a story, but I don’t believe that those [Nick letters] are the real deal in any way. There are just way too many questions that need to be addressed to make them real, and when they can’t be addressed there is only one explanation:

They’re clever approximations of Dahmer letters meant to deceive and cheat someone out of thousands of dollars.

And there will always be fakes around with this level of interest [in Dahmer].

Very interesting to see though!”

– ‘Reece’ – a former penpal of Dahmer’s, decades-long collector and art historian – shares his insight into the Nick letters

In short, Reece was adamant – in no uncertain terms – that the letters to Nick were fake, and he provided a deeply informed perspective.

Third, fourth – or even more – opinions may be sought when trying to verify potential fakes, especially if a lot of money is involved. However, if the person giving the second opinion is qualified (has relevant expertise, no conflict of interest, has studied the specific case with a thoroughness akin to a specialist subject and can explain their points in detail with examples, etc.) then their perspective alone is usually enough to offer a clear, trustworthy counterpoint or confirmation to the first.

Quality matters more than quantity; and one deeplt informed opinion would outweigh several vague or casual ones.

Fortunately, most experts are glad to share their insight if approached politely.

[ BACK ]

Summary and Conclusion

It’s important to consider the following when authenticating Dahmer letters:

✅ Does the handwriting match Dahmer’s?

✅ Does the content match Dahmer’s tone and allign with what’s known about him and his life in prison?

✅ Does the envelope resemble a legitimate envelope sent via CCI?

If present, does the prison stamp match the official Wisconsin Prison stamp? Is it on the back or does it feel like an effort has gone into making the front more interesting and ‘presentable’? Does the cancellation stamp have seven lines? Is the postmark centred? etc.

✅ Can a non-biased source with a nuanced understanding of the case, a direct connection to Dahmer, or a background in forensics or historical artifacts, vouch for it?

The more questions raised, the less likely it is to be real.

All of Nick’s correspondence is questionable because of issues with:

Slideshows highlighting the various issues with Nick Bergstorm’s ‘Dahmer’ mail

As Dahmer’s former pen pal said:

“There’s just problem after problem, after problem, after problem. Which can only leave one explanation:

It’s a fake made to deceive and cheat.”

Even if one were still – somehow, someway – reluctant to brand the Nick letters as 100% fake, the number of red flags waving from them raises significant reasonable doubt about their legitimacy.

Verdicts of reasonable doubt can save a man from the electric chair – or, in this case, something upwards of $2,000. 

[ BACK ]

---

A very, very big thank you to ‘Reece’ for his incredible insight, lessons and time 🙂

Sources:

• Supernaught
• Case documents
• Letters sent from Jeffrey Dahmer to various people and pen pals
• Conversations with collectors
• Conversations with a Killer: The Jeffrey Dahmer Tapes (Netflix, 2022)
• The Milwaukee Journal, Record Searchlight, et al.
• ‘Making Your Own Rubber Stamp’ at Handmade Books and Journals
• USPS
• ’18 U.S. Code § 503 – Postmarking stamps’ at Cornell Law School
• Goldfinger by Ian Fleming (1959)
• Also a huge thank you to Gunnar, Rick S, Steve G, Rae and Juwel.

Footnotes:

1. Focus is on how Dahmer, CCI and Madison, Wi. processed their mail between 1992 – ’94. Other states, prisons and prisoners may have done so differently. Dahmer also sent many typed letters and envelopes after acquiring a typewriter in 1993. These too can be faked and have similar indicatons of illegitmacy – though this post focuses solely on handwritten letters ↩︎
2. Quoted by Dr. Fosdal ↩︎
3. In 2023, a letter and card allegedly sent from Dahmer to a pen pal named Jesse were shared online. Jesse claimed he’d been his late teens when he wrote to Dahmer and had ended up in – what he believed – was a romantic relationship with the killer across several years. The letter showed Dahmer apologising for acting jealous and insisting that he loved Jesse “with every fibre of my being… I’ve never admitted [this] to anyone before. It makes me feel vulnerable… You have my heart like no one else ever has… Remember that you’re mine. I love you.” There’s been much debate over whether the card and letter are real. However, if they are, that this ‘relationship’ took place over a period where Dahmer was still soliciting other men for photos and attention shows Dahmer’s grasp on ‘love’ to be fickle and grounded in deception, manipulation and convenience. Still a farcry from the kind of eros he’s supposedly gushing to Nick about. After seeing the letters Dahmer sent Jason Moss, Jesse later admitted he’d felt used and branded Dahmer a “slut” ↩︎
4. Dated June 2, 1993 ↩︎
5. Unfortunately, I could only find one clear (but partially obstructed) image of the stamp from the letter in which ‘Jeff’ gushes about Nick’s “wonderful wedding night.” The other images of the envelope and its accompanying letter were from the low quality video ↩︎
6. Other states and prisons may have followed different procedures ↩︎
7. Due to personal and professional reasons, ‘Reece’ has opted to remain anonymous ↩︎