the DNA claim has not been independently verfied and even if they were, his 'bodily fluids' being on a shawl only prove that he had contact at some point, not that he murdered anyone
the sensationalism really annoys me - every news outlet has picked up the story and their headlines are all the same blatant propaganda
I'm not one of those people with a 'pet' Ripper theory, too invested in it to want to see anyone else's be correct. I would like nothing better than to see the Ripper finally identified.
But here, I must agree with Stan 100% -- there was no such shawl listed in her belongings (and the list really was extensive!). Even if it had been found 'near' her body, it would have been listed in some document or other, surely the list of her belongings though, if it was bloodstained...
I have my doubts here, I really do, for that reason. There's been several semi-clever hoaxes around the Ripper case in years gone by, and yes they do draw headlines in the media -- which, I think, is the point. Massive book sales for the hoaxer...
I think this will get heavy scrutiny from some extremely clever people, including a bunch in law enforcement, so hopefully we'll soon be seeing some informed opinions on the science.
As to Walter Sickert -- now, he might not have been the Ripper? But he had a VERY dark mind and a dark sense of humour to match There's a side to him that makes me see why poor Patty Cornwell spent 6 million of her own money trying to prove him guilty. She's generally ridiculed by serious Ripperologists now, but I ... well, I think he had a lot of secrets, at the very least he was obsessed with a particular type of murder. I don't like him a bit, heh. Wonderful art, though.
Anyway, I won't be purchasing this latest fellow's book until I hear some expert approval of it. Too many "solved" ripper case books on my shelf as it is.