GSG xmas present

[John G]

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

Thanks, for this, Mike. Somewhat surprisingly I missed this total gobbledygook reply from Pierre. I'd like to say that I'd expected something more substantive but that, of course, would be a lie!

[The Good Michael]

You're back Pierre, but you are obviously not the bearer of gifts. Therefore, more like the spectre at the feast!

Therefore, where's my promised Christmas present?

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

[Pierre]

You're back Pierre, but you are obviously not the bearer of gifts. Therefore, more like the spectre at the feast!

And where's my promised Christmas present?

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

[John G]

You're back Pierre, but you are obviously not the bearer of gifts. Therefore, more like the spectre at the feast!

Therefore, where's my promised Christmas present?

[Pierre]

Is anyone able to translate this from Pierrespeak into English for me?

Is it Pierre's way of saying I am correct and that his suspect's name is not found in the document?

Not that I even care.

You obviously do care, David.

I am saying that you are wrong.

Regards, Pierre

[GUT]

Is anyone able to translate this from Pierrespeak into English for me?

Is it Pierre's way of saying I am correct and that his suspect's name is not found in the document?

Not that I even care.

I've got no idea.

Not sure if he knows what it means.

[David Orsam]

I do not believe it. It is an historical fact.

It is not another person. That is also an historical fact.

Isnīt it terrible, David? Here you have a source giving an ID corresponding to an ID in the Whitechapel murders case. And it is a lie.

Do you know why it is a lie?

Because the murderer used the name.

Merry xmas, David.

Is anyone able to translate this from Pierrespeak into English for me?

Is it Pierre's way of saying I am correct and that his suspect's name is not found in the document?

Not that I even care.

[Pierre]

QUOTE=David Orsam;404146

Wouldn't surprise me if Pierre believes that one of the "lies" in the document is the name given by the person who supposedly claims to be a judge.

I do not believe it. It is an historical fact.

In other words, it's probably not Pierre's suspect who is the subject of the document but someone else entirely

It is not another person. That is also an historical fact.

Isnīt it terrible, David? Here you have a source giving an ID corresponding to an ID in the Whitechapel murders case. And it is a lie.

Do you know why it is a lie?

Because the murderer used the name.

Merry xmas, David.

Pierre

[David Orsam]

Finally promised the 'present' of some real information, but given us more of the same: unnamed persons, in unnamed sources, presented through the lens of Pierre's own interpretation, followed by the claim that the GSG riddle has been solved.

The "lens of Pierre's own interpretation" is undoubtedly the key here.

Wouldn't surprise me if Pierre believes that one of the "lies" in the document is the name given by the person who supposedly claims to be a judge. In other words, it's probably not Pierre's suspect who is the subject of the document but someone else entirely - it's only Pierre thinking it is (in exactly the same way he thought that "Gogmagog" was his suspect).

It would certainly explain the tortuous and strangely worded sentence

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

There's still time before the big day for him to reproduce a transcript of the source in its entirety (with identifying names and places redacted if necessary) as a Christmas present for the forum. I think he owes it to the members who he has badly let down with his false statement about giving us an historical xmas present.

[John G]

Well it definitely looks as though Santa had failed to deliver my early Christmas present-has he got stuck in a chimney, I wonder!

[GUT]

Just to recap. Pierre has:

Never presented a shred of evidence that he is entitled to call himself a historian

But has presented plenty of evidence that he isn't an historian, not even a senior school history student.

Many times has been unable to distinguish a primary source from a secondary source.

[Henry Flower]

There is nothing preventing me or any other historian of discussing different interpretations.

And neither was there anything preventing you from acquiring the grammar expected of an academic before claiming to be one.

Preventing you... of? Ouch.

Just to recap. Pierre has:

Never presented a shred of evidence that he is entitled to call himself a historian
Never presented any testable data
Never given details of a single source that might be checked by others
Finally promised the 'present' of some real information, but given us more of the same: unnamed persons, in unnamed sources, presented through the lens of Pierre's own interpretation, followed by the claim that the GSG riddle has been solved.

Pierre, there are some amusing responses to your 'present' on this thread. None of them amuse me as much as your own buffoonish theory and risible self-justifications. I always thought you were a deceitful fraud, I'm actually beginning to worry that you might well have mental health issues.

Seriously, lay off this tedious nonsense, for your own good. I have always enjoyed aiming scorn at you because you never fail to come across as an arrogant a55, but if you are actually not well in a mental sense, and it seems you're not, then obviously there would be little pleasure in needling you.

Please give it a rest. Find a better hobby. You're not going to solve the case, but nobody expects you to, so no-one is going to juwe - er, sorry - judge you for that. (Those two words are so easily confused! I'm always doing that!)

[jerryd]

It is not a matter of taste, Harry. It is a very clear matter of sources from the past.

And knife-wielding psychos do have social lives too.

Regards, Pierre

Like having a friend for dinner?

[Abby Normal]

Que the circus clowns

[Pierre]

Pierre has now been added to the growing pile of fantasists who need a **** n' bull explanation for the serial murder of at least five women. What's so unpalatable about a knife-wielding psycho who just got his kicks from cutting up women? These people do exist, you know?

It is not a matter of taste, Harry. It is a very clear matter of sources from the past.

And knife-wielding psychos do have social lives too.

Regards, Pierre