[Mr Ramsbotham]

I wouldn't be too sure on this one. The supposed shawl has never been associated with the victim, and no one knows where it came from. The author makes a big deal of it being the same pattern as the victim's dress, but then claims it couldn't have belonged to the victim, but must have been placed there by the Ripper as some kind of "clue." The DNA is 126 years old, and the author claims some kind of unique process has been developed to extract usable mDNA, which he associated with the killer and victim through their maternal descendants.

The problem is, the guy is using this information to hawk a book. If I were cynical, I'd point out that by going to the killer's and victim's descendants and obtaining samples of their DNA, he's already got all the material he needs for the purpose of "discovering" DNA on the shawl.

Unless the results can be independently confirmed by an impartial party or parties, I'm inclined to think this a hoax.

[UCANSEE2]

Here’s another source.

http://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/news/liverpool-news/liverpool-scientist-how-solved-mystery-7732111

[FredZarguna]

Correct. And see my additional comments at #18.