Well, you’re right about Cornwall I’ll give you that-I got that mixed up with Stephen Knight’s pet theory (which also alleged Sickert was in on the plot). That being said, none of what you have said here, I’m afraid, supports your position in any concrete way. First, there is no evidence that the letter you refer to (or indeed any of the hundreds of letters claiming to be from the murderer) was sent by the murderer himself. Indeed, the wildly differing content, tone and handwriting of the ‘Jack the Ripper’ letters suggest numerous authors. Second, because of this, the timing of the “Ripper” letters is totally irrelevant to identifying the murderer. Unless we have a single identified sender then the timing of the letters tells us nothing. Moreover, a far more plausible explanation is that the drop off in letters (at least some of which must have been hoaxes) coincided with the cessation of ripper activity and consequently public interest. Third, your assertion that Van Gogh lived in London and would have blended in there still proves nothing. It implicates him no more than the thousands of other residents of Whitechapel at the time. Fourth, your theory on the dates of the murders does not line up with all of the murders, and the 1889 murder (to say nothing of the much earlier murder you mention) has never been conclusively linked with the accepted murders. Fifth and finally, the interpretation of his paintings is neither verifiable nor, to my eyes, even clear. As Doyle wrote-One must never twist facts to suit theories but theories to suit facts. The facts of the case just do not support this theory unless you are privy to a lot more information that 120 years of fascination with and study of both of these persons has not managed to unearth. It don’t wash.