Now It could well be him but this "evidence" does not prove this. All it does prove is that the shawl belonged to Aaron (DNA from semen). Aaron Kosminski who by the way had a history with prostitutes. At best this merely confirms that he was acquainted with Eddowes, a prostitute.
With a provenance like that, the mystery is solved beyond all reasonable doubt.
Well, at least now the case is truly closed!
> "An interesting but remarkable claim that needs to be subjected to peer review, with detailed analysis of the provenance of the shawl and the nature of the claimed DNA match with the perpetrator's descendants and its power of discrimination; no actual evidence has yet been provided," Jeffreys told The Independent newspaper.
Doesn't this sort of thing happen every few years whenever someone decides to write a new book on the subject?
The DNA stuff would NOT prove -- even if there were no contamination of evidence, no fakery and no misreading of the evidence -- that this guy was the Ripper. At best it proves he had sexual intercourse with the victim. This isn't a bad lead, but it doesn't "prove" anything about the identity of the killer.
The linked article's title: "Jack the Ripper identified through DNA traces: sleuth"
See the missing word? We're talking about one person's claim, not an established fact. It might be true, it might be false, but misrepresenting the evidence doesn't help.
This is a relevant case as well:
Why? It's still written somewhere.