Unmasking a Fake: Why This Letter from Luigi Mangione Doesn't Add Up

The last thing this case needs is more controversy.

The recently surfaced prison letters that are believed to have been written by Luigi Mangione have taken the internet by storm. Not only do his replies offer a glimpse into his life behind bars, but they also serve to humanize him. I believe that’s the point. His team wants the general public to see beyond the orange jumpsuit and understand who is underneath: He is a promising, polite young man who cares for those he loves and literal strangers who might be suffering.

While many are captivated by the raw emotion and historical intrigue of his replies, something about the latest letter that is going viral doesn’t pass my sniff test. Let’s dig in. See the letter below. The response was initially posted on Ashley Shelby’s Substack.

Letter #1 - Karen

Now, let’s compare and contrast.

Letter #2

Letter #3

Letter #4

Letter #5

Edited March 10, 2025 at 12:41 pm: Here are two additional letters.

Several glaring inconsistencies exist in “Karen’s” viral letter that Substack writer Ashley Shelby posted. In this section, I will break down these red flags and explain why I think Karen’s letter is a fake. (Note: Ashley Shelby is not the author of the letter. She was sent a copy by someone purporting to be Karen.)

Excessive and extraneous details.

In Letter #1, Luigi tells Karen that he will hang the picture she sent him on the wall of his prison cell. Why is it necessary to specify which wall? It’s implied that he’s referring to the wall in his cell. In Letter #5, he again mentions his cell without any qualifiers, simply calling it his cell. Additionally, it’s important to note that the Metropolitan Detention Center is not a prison; it’s a jail. While the average person might not understand the difference, someone facing life without parole would undoubtedly know it. 

Later, in Letter #5, he suggests that Karen use an app called Fast Prints to send him a color version of the picture she mentioned. He informs her that she will need his inmate ID number, which he provides. However, the only way his letter could have reached him initially was if Karen had already had his inmate ID number. Why is he providing it again? Providing unnecessary details is often a classic sign of deception.

The envelope.

Letter #1 is the one Ashley Shelby embedded in her post about “Karen’s” letter. Letter #2 is a picture of an envelope from a letter also believed to be from Luigi. Look closely at the return addresses for envelopes 1 and 2. Pay close attention to the penmanship. Luigi’s inmate ID number contains a dash not found in examples 3-6.

Letter# 1 - Karen

Letter #2

Letter #3

Letter #4

Letter #5

Letter #6

The postmark and stamp.

The letters below show that the stamps all appear to have the same postmark, PM 10 L, and the stamps are from the same 2024 series.

The postmark on Karen’s letter is PM 9 L, and the stamp comes from a series released in 2019.

The writing voice/style.

When Mangione was first arrested, I created a video wherein I compared the letter to the Feds with some of his previously posted writings. I made special note of the fact that Luigi is fond of adverbs and qualifiers. This was an observation made by Ashley Shelby as well.

I was fascinated by Mangione’s use of particularly strong, emotional adverbs and verbs. Karen and her daughter “senselessly” had to “endure” suffering. He told Karen that her daughter was lucky to have a mother who fought “relentlessly” for her.

While we agree that Luigi Mangione loved well-used adverbs, we disagree about how he used them.

So sorry for what you and your daughter so senselessly had to endure.

Your daughter is blessed to have a mother who loves her so much and fights for her so relentlessly.

So senselessly. So relentlessly. So much. Read the Fed Letter and Luigi’s Goodreads review of The Unabomber’s Manifesto. There is only one use of the word “so"

I work in engineering so probably not much info there. Here, “so” is used as a conjunction. In Karen’s letter, it’s used as an (unnecessary) intensifier. His natural writing voice is more concise. He doesn’t pollute his writing with repetitive filler words. For example, “so senselessly had to endure” would be written as “so senselessly endured.” He didn’t need the extra words.

The signature.

In Karen’s letter, Luigi signs off using his first and last name. In all the others, he only writes his first name.

I can’t offer a definitive answer as to whether or not Luigi is the author of “Karen’s” letter. I believe “Karen” doesn’t exist, and the Luigi Letter is a forgery.

I’m more than open to being proven wrong. Please note that this isn't the first letter that has raised eyebrows. In January, another one page letter made its way around Tiktok and was quickly debunked. Another creator adjusted the exposure and was able to see the lines of another piece of paper behind it. A picture of a letter written by Luigi would have no such lines.

Forging a letter from Luigi Mangione could serve various motives, from financial gain to historical manipulation. If Mangione was a significant historical, literary, or political figure, a forged letter could be used to influence public perception, alter historical narratives, or increase the value of a document. Collectors and institutions might pay large sums for such artifacts, making forgery lucrative. Someone with a personal or ideological agenda could fabricate a letter to legitimize certain claims, rewrite history, or create controversy. That’s the last thing this case needs.

For those who might wonder why I needed to share my insights about Ashley’s post and the letter within it, allow me to explain. In every high-profile case, some people try to insert themselves into the story or ingratiate themselves with investigators, family, and friends of victims or suspects.

If you follow the Idaho 4 case, you’ve probably heard of Dot. Dot is a seasoned troll who fabricated a story about being a secret witness who could exonerate Brian Kohberger. They didn’t stop there. They also crafted a fake narrative that further implicated Dylan Mortensen, which continues to be repeated almost two years later.

If someone can slip a phony letter from Luigi past a respected journalist, and that letter goes viral, imagine the damage a determined prosecution member or other enemy of Luigi’s could cause with their fictional replies.

Your thoughts?