Don't forget that he also presents himself as a hacker expert. He showed no indication of knowing about either the tool or its author despite his claims of working in a position that pretty much requires that he know about at least the tool.
So why the need to lie about the author of the tool?
To me it looks like this might be a possible scenario (assuming you're correct about GE not knowing the tool at all, but of course I don't concede that as that would require proof since you're a confirmed liar).
Scenario: You were mistaken about the tool's author. You discovered your mistake via freepmail so instead of admitting you were wrong you instead say you're trying to trap GE. That makes the most sense since as you say...GE didn't even know what the tool was, so why the need to lie about the author?
Which this backs GEs assertion that you were defending Russian Hackers...why else would you claim it was a Russian hacker that wrote it? According to you...you had GE on not knowing the tool so it makes no sense to also lie about the tools author since it's pretty much just a trivia question anyway.
It appears you're trying to change the issue of your lying about a Russian Hacker creating a tool. You lied to make them look good (as GE claims) because there was no need to trap him as he didn't know what the tool was (as you claim). Which one is more believable:
A) You had GE trapped on not knowing what the tool was and decided to arbitrarily extend the lie to include the author's origin...even though you already had GE nailed on not knowing what the tool was (which would be the most important issue).
B) You thought it was written by Russian Hackers (based on the guy's name) and you put it out as such in defense of russian hackers. You learned that you were wrong via freepmail and said you were laying a trap on GE to keep from admitting you were wrong.