Shaw:
There was no contemporary documentation that the shaw was recovered from the crime scene
There was no contemporary documentation that Inspector that supposedly took the shaw and gifted it to his wife was at the crime scene
The shaw was silk and had an expensive design making it unlikely that Eddowes would have owned it
DNA:
The DNA collected and compared was mitochondrial DNA which is far less unique than nuclear DNA, mitochondrial DNA is generally considered exclusory rather than inclusory
The shaw was not kept free from contamination, descendents of both the identified victim and the identified suspect are known to have handled the shaw prior to testing
On top of the problematic DNA match from his last book the author is now layering on conspiracy theories concerning Freemasons and antisemitism for his new book to draw even more questionable conclusions.
I’m sorry, do you mean shawl? I’ve been having a hard time reading and understanding things lately, so I tried Googling “shaw” and found a bunch of people named that which is extra confusing in this context
The DNA match that the author claims is very suspect. (Here)[https://arstechnica.com/science/2019/03/dont-believe-the-hype-we-may-never-know-the-identity-of-jack-the-ripper/] is a good article about why. The bullet points are:
Shaw: There was no contemporary documentation that the shaw was recovered from the crime scene
There was no contemporary documentation that Inspector that supposedly took the shaw and gifted it to his wife was at the crime scene
The shaw was silk and had an expensive design making it unlikely that Eddowes would have owned it
DNA: The DNA collected and compared was mitochondrial DNA which is far less unique than nuclear DNA, mitochondrial DNA is generally considered exclusory rather than inclusory
The shaw was not kept free from contamination, descendents of both the identified victim and the identified suspect are known to have handled the shaw prior to testing
On top of the problematic DNA match from his last book the author is now layering on conspiracy theories concerning Freemasons and antisemitism for his new book to draw even more questionable conclusions.
No matter how much evidence and proof you have, half the people will say it wasn’t him. Especially historians who are dead set on a different suspect
I’m sorry, do you mean shawl? I’ve been having a hard time reading and understanding things lately, so I tried Googling “shaw” and found a bunch of people named that which is extra confusing in this context
Yes, I edited my comment to fix the spelling. Thanks for letting me know about the error.
Thank you for editing. It is a good comment, sorry I got a little lost on my way through it
Op meant shawl like a coat blanket thing
They meant “shawl” all 6 or so times they said “shaw”, yes.
Reading other sources, I doubt this claim as well.