Yes, and as we all know, there were no other missing persons in that region of the country during the time of Jack the Ripper was active and that the only male that could have gotten blood on a shawl obviously had to be Jack.
I guess Jack sent sent that womans shawl to police after autographing it in his own blood with the words "This is Bloody Jacks, don't touch it gov".
The provenance of the shawl is very questionable. If it is the shawl found near the body of a ripper victim, it may very well not have been hers. Even if you make the assumptions that it is the one found at the crime scene, and it's hers, you then have to make the huge unsubstantiated conclusion that the blood on it is Jacks.
Now, you aren't done yet. The DNA analysis is rather unlikely to be able to pin down someone exactly when dealing with someone from many generations ago that you don't have any samples of. About all you can do is follow lineage and say the blood is related to known ancestors of that suspect. Of course, there are bound to be a lot of other relatives that held that mitochondrial dna alive at that time, especially when dealing with close knit communities that intermarry far more than breed outside their group. Something very common, including with Jews in Europe at that time.
Still worse, the sample wasn't preserved in a fashion to reduce contamination and decay. At an age over a century, it's value for making such wild accusations against another unknown dna is absurd.
To top that all off, someone else has previously claimed to have done a dna identification, and they fingered an entirely different suspect.
This whole thing is a farce. It was probably done to sell books or something, because from a scientific evidential standpoint, it's composed more of fiction than Moby DIck.