GSG xmas present

[David Orsam]

...and yet people continue to respond to his posts all the while complaining as they do so.

Not everyone can be as perfect as you c.d. I think of your contribution to the Maybrick Diary thread the other day: "Is it just me or does it seem like some people have way too much free time on their hands?" A classic and much loved internet forum post which everyone loves to see repeated as much as possible.

For your information, the basic complaint in this thread is that there has been no GSG xmas present as promised in the title. I don't know how it's possible to complain about that without posting in the thread.

[c.d.]

...and yet people continue to respond to his posts all the while complaining as they do so.

c.d.

[John G]

Hi everyone,

I have promised you a xmas present. With this present I hope that the GSG will be much clearer to all here.

The present has four parts (you may think it has more).

One is a new source.

One is the explanation for the GSG.

One is the motive for killing all the victims.

One is the explanation for the double negative in the GSG.

1. I have found a new document produced by an institution and it is in an archive in Britain.

In this document there are two lies. One is not being presented here since it is giving an ID connected to the data from the Whitechapel murders.

The other lie which is to be presented to you here is:

The person giving the data in this source told those who produced the source that he was a judge although he was not.

It is clearly written and visible.

There is an external function for the whole document which explains how it is connected to the Whitechapel murders.

There are also many sources which have a high explanatory value for the motive behind the GSG.

2. I will now give you the explanation for the GSG:

There was a very serious threat against him from the judges on the 1st and 2nd October. There is another original source from an archive stating this.

He wanted to stop them. There is another original source from an archive stating that.

There are several sources showing that:

There was a trial against him.

He was blamed.

He did not accept it.

He was very shamed.

One person knew that he was trying to stop the process and the communication is directed to him. There is more communication throughout the case and it is always directed to the same person.

On the night of the double event the killer knew what was going to happen on the 1st and 2nd October.

To stop the judicial process against him he wrote on the wall in Goulston Street:

The judges are not the men that will be blamed for nothing.

He took it upon himself to act like a judge in his own cause:

He was not the "judge" who would be blamed for nothing. He claimed that he was innocent.

(But he was guilty, there is a source for this).

3. The victims, all of them, were killed to make the procedure against him stop.

That was the paramount motive of the killer.

The murder of Stride was for the threat against him on 1st October, the murder of Eddowes was for the threat against him on 2nd October.

The judges are not the men that will be blamed for nothing.

= The judges at court were the men that were to be blamed for something: They were to be blamed for the murders.

If they stopped the procedure, the murders would stop.

4. The reason for the double negative is the two aspects of blame on judges:
the blame on the killer who acted as a judge in his own cause and the blame on the real judges.

When the murders stopped after Pinchin Street 1889, the judges had stopped the procedure.

I have some work to do but will read your comments and also respond later.

I wish you all a very Merry Xmas.

Best wishes, Pierre

Trial? That means that, logically, he must have been arrested and prosecuted. Perhaps the King of Hearts was the judge! Had he stolen some tarts, I wonder?

Of course, tart is both a euphemism for a prostitute, and a word that rhymes with "heart." Wait a minute, I think I might be on to something here!

[John G]

QUOTE=jerryd;403925



Jerry,

You are not supposed to do anything at all.



The first source in the source hierachy gave "Juwes". There is no evidence for a killer having any problem with "Juwes".



I draw the line when there are too many sources pointing to the killer and when these sources at the same time give motive explanations as well as functional and causal explanations. Then I have to rule out "chance". There is nothing else to do.

Regards, Pierre

So you have subjectively decided that the operative word was "judges" , not "Juwes". Only in a post-truth fantasy world can this be true. Are you an admirer of the speeches of Donald Trump by any chance?

[John G]

Hi All,

Pierre appears to be the Donald Trump of Ripperology.

Regards [and a Happy Christmas],

Simon

Well, like the President Elect he does sometimes appear to favour a "post-truth" approach.

Happy Christmas to you, too, Simon.

[GUT]

Maybe peAerror is a Billionaire.

Wish he was a recluse like that other Billionaire was.

[Henry Flower]

Or are you referring to the well-known fact that Donald Trump claims he knows who the Whitechapel fiend was but adamantly refuses to share his sources or his suspect with those who could and would easily disprove his theory?

In that sense, yes, Pierre is very much the Donald Trump of the boards.

[GUT]

Hi All,

Pierre appears to be the Donald Trump of Ripperology.

Regards [and a Happy Christmas],

Simon

Are you saying he wears a cat skin on his head?

[Henry Flower]

Hi All,

Pierre appears to be the Donald Trump of Ripperology.

Regards [and a Happy Christmas],

Simon

You're saying we're all writing him off as insane but in fact he will triumph in the end against all the odds and all the expert predictions?

I can't agree.

Regards

[Simon Wood]

Hi All,

Pierre appears to be the Donald Trump of Ripperology.

Regards [and a Happy Christmas],

Simon

[GUT]

He doesn't, and he won't. He never will. This sad little joke can and will continue for as long as admin let it.

I think the key to the mystery could be solved if we worked out which rival JtR forum wants Casebook destroyed from within, because frankly if that's what someone was aiming for they would simply come here and do precisely what Pierre has spent the past year doing.

It is inconceivable that anyone could inflict this thread on the boards without intending for it to be as precisely useless as it is. It's no accident. It's not a bug it's a feature. This is what he does.

Admin, wake up.

Pierre, the joke is very tired now. Grow up.

And he was warned once about his "I know something you don't" antics.

[Henry Flower]

How can anyone understand the issue of the thread......

"a document I won't show you, says something I won't tell you and it wasn't written by the signatory but someone who I won't name" discuss.

Please stop with the silly little games and either put up or shut up.

He doesn't, and he won't. He never will. This sad little joke can and will continue for as long as admin let it.

I think the key to the mystery could be solved if we worked out which rival JtR forum wants Casebook destroyed from within, because frankly if that's what someone was aiming for they would simply come here and do precisely what Pierre has spent the past year doing.

It is inconceivable that anyone could inflict this thread on the boards without intending for it to be as precisely useless as it is. It's no accident. It's not a bug it's a feature. This is what he does.

Admin, wake up.

Pierre, the joke is very tired now. Grow up.

[GUT]

Hi John,

as we all can see, you keep using Davidīs strategy, a strategy he started with early on in this thread to be able to destroy it. That was his own plan, and everyone here can see it. He is now continuing with that and you and GUT have chosen to take up his strategy and do the same.

If you, on the contrary, were able to understand the issue in the thread you would also have something to say about the contents of it.

If you do not understand the contents of it, you can read it again and see if the understanding improves.

When you have done so and can understand the contents, you may perhaps also contribute to the case by discussing the contents with me.

If you choose to do so, you will be most welcome.

Regards, Pierre

How can anyone understand the issue of the thread......

"a document I won't show you, says something I won't tell you and it wasn't written by the signatory but someone who I won't name" discuss.

Please stop with the silly little games and either put up or shut up.

[GUT]

He gave it. He said the killer used his name, presumably in the GSG and he is Judge something or other though he is no judge and lied about that elsewhere; in another document. So what we have is someone who lied about being a judge somewhere and then used that title in the GSG to say he will not be blamed.

See? It's easy. Ridiculous, but easy.

Mike

I dub thee the next Pierre.

(Well based on the above you write like him anyway )

[GUT]

I think I can definitely not say that Pierre has not not read my post properly.

Does he ever, glad his never claimed his qualifications were in English Literature.