It's not new information - the discovery was published in a book in 2014 - but it sounds credible enough. The criticisms of the finding seem to mostly be non sequiturs, and one fair criticism that the second set of DNA cannot prove that the shawl belonged to the victim after the shawl has been in prolonged proximity to other members of that family.
It's not new information - the discovery was published in a book in 2014 - but it sounds credible enough. The criticisms of the finding seem to mostly be non sequiturs, and one fair criticism that the second set of DNA cannot prove that the shawl belonged to the victim after the shawl has been in prolonged proximity to other members of that family.