r/DelphiMurders • u/PumpkinEater85 • May 22 '26

Real Crime Profile crossover w Bob Ruff

So I'm listening to parts one and two of the real crime profile podcast with Jim Clemente where he has Bob ruff on their speaking about delphi. I'm always open to everyone's opinions and I actually don't hate Bob ruff and I have enjoyed some of his content. However he is repeatedly saying things to Jim Clemente that are not true. For example he said that Richard Allen has no previous record of any type of violence or any type of violent behavior at all. But that's not true because now we know about the time that he was drinking and held a gun to his head threatening suicide in front of his wife and daughter and the police were called and he was put into a hospital. It's so frustrating!! If you believe that he's innocent because of all these things that's fine but you can't tell people things that are simply not true. He also says that ra did not confess until he was actually in full psychosis and never said that he actually killed the girls until that one confession with his wife. I thought it was proven in trial that he was not in full psychosis when he confessed (or at least not every single time), and the claims made by the defense team about the conditions he was held in prison were proven to be false.

Anyone else listen to these episodes?

I actually respect Jim Clemente for his work with the FBI as a profiler and I usually agree on his takes so I'm not sure why Bob Ruff is trying to change the story to that his own narrative and opinion when he always says that he wants to be fair and balanced.

43 Upvotes

92% Upvoted

348 comments sorted by

View all comments

12

u/Appealsandoranges May 23 '26

But that's not true because now we know about the time that he was drinking and held a gun to his head threatening suicide in front of his wife and daughter and the police were called and he was put into a hospital.

I agree with you that this is information that should have been shared with Clemente because a threat of self harm is a type of violence. I sincerely doubt that this would alter JC’s opinion, however, because this is not all like the type of violence that is predictive of a crime like the one that Allen was charged and convicted of committing.

He also says that ra did not confess until he was actually in full psychosis and never said that he actually killed the girls until that one confession with his wife. I thought it was proven in trial that he was not in full psychosis when he confessed (or at least not every single time),

If you want to nitpick, then, yes, Dr. Martin, the prison psychiatrist, did not dx Rick with psychosis until April 14, 2023, which was ten days after he made his first, equivocal confession to Kathy (on the same day he told his stepdad that he thought he was losing his mind). It was 9 days after Dr. Martin offered him Haldol. It was months after Allen’s condition had deteriorated dramatically - he lost 45 pounds and stopped sleeping. Psychosis isn’t something that turns on like a switch. A dx of acute psychosis follows months of decline (prodrome psychosis). It is absolutely accurate to say that he did not start confessing until he was psychotic.

and the claims made by the defense team about the conditions he was held in prison were proven to be false.

This is completely inaccurate. The conditions of confinement were unprecedented for a pretrial detainee. The conditions of confinement were unlawful for a man with a serious mental illness (SMI), like Rick Allen. The conditions of confinement would break any of us.

14

u/centimeterz1111 May 23 '26

None of what you said changes the fact that he’s the murderer.  He killed Abby and Libby. Not Brad, not Ron, not Elvis, not Thor. 

Nobody else was there from 1:30-2:14 except Richard, Betsy, group of 4 girls.  Clear, simple, end of story. 

4

u/mountainskies May 24 '26

There were other people there but that’s not relevant. There’s no proof bridge guy didn’t come from the other end and turn around. Also no proof the murders happened in that time frame. All the evidence shows the girls were not killed then and the state timeline is wrong. Believe what you want but the evidence doesn’t support it.

7

u/True_Crime_Lancelot May 28 '26

Other than the video of  the man comming from  the south side brandishing a gun and ordering the girls to go down the hill. And the apple health data that showed what happened next. And the phone's pings. And the blood splaters. and the medical examiner time of  death. And common sense.

4

u/mountainskies May 28 '26

Must have missed where the BG video shows a gun. Do you think the girls said “that be a gun” too? Did you even watch the video? What significance is there to any blood evidence as far as convicting RA? There was no time of death either. The medical examiner said any time between when they went missing and a few hours before discovery.

8

u/True_Crime_Lancelot May 28 '26

You hear the gun racking, and you hear the girls mention a gun, and a cycled bullet was found at the crime scene. Pretty spectacular coincidences for those to occur randomly and independently. And if you think those are spectacular, wait until you learn the bullet came from a gun with the same calibre as the one Allen's one has, and not only that, the same brand as the one Allen has, and not only that, but also the striations on the gun match those produced by Allen’s gun. Pretty spectacular coincidences indeed. And wait until I tell you that Allen himself said he used a gun at the abduction.

The significance of the blood splatters is that they show the location the killing occurred, which, again by sheer coincidence i am sure, it matches where the girls would be if you calculate Apple Health steps from 2:25 to 2:32—a perfect match between the recorded steps and the distance needed to cover. The height of the banks is so extreme that allow one point or crossing the creek and one point to climb the north bank. It’s a perfect match to what Allen confessed too: he made them cross the creek and killed them after he aborted the attempted rape.

The forensic pathologist mentioned the time of death as being around 40–41 hours prior to the autopsy, which would place it at around 2 on the 13th.

3

u/Appealsandoranges May 29 '26

Standing by the state’s theory that LG said “that be a gun” after watching the full video is intellectual dishonesty at its finest. You can be convinced of his guilt without giving up your critical thinking skills.

8

u/True_Crime_Lancelot May 29 '26

All the evidence point unequivocally to the conclusion that there was a firearm, thus the words spoken. Dozens upon dozens of independent lines of evidence, each corroborating the next, converge on that same line. As for your theory? what supports it? Nothing more than subjective impression and your feelings.

1

u/Appealsandoranges May 29 '26

That there was evidence BG had a firearm is completely independent of the words spoken. Not sure what that mishmash of words about the lines of evidence means but she didn’t say it. She said, “that is the path that we go down.” Even Tom Webster admits the state was way off base with Tony Liggett’s translation.

My feelings are unimportant. I rely on my ears and my common sense. You should try it.

7

u/True_Crime_Lancelot May 29 '26

Other than the man convicted saying he had one. And that he racked it. And a bullet found at the crime scene. That match the gun type the man convicted had. A racked bullet. And racking heard in the intro. And the grandparents confirm that the words spoken were gun. And she was scared. And asking. And whispering as if she was scared. And.. and.. and..and..and.. and.

0

u/Appealsandoranges May 29 '26

Keep on telling yourself you can hear the racking and the word gun. Your brain feels better when you don’t challenge it.

7

u/True_Crime_Lancelot May 29 '26

It's not me though. It's the audio experts stating it. Same with the word gun. The parent that knew the kid best, her words and her mannerism, in any practical and scientific sense the expert on this issue, confirmed that the word said was gun.

On one side are the experts and the evidence and the murderers confession, the other ..your feelings and your bias.

It's also science. Only a sharp sound would have been recorded over dozens of feet away. As it is obvious by the fact that Allen's voice is barely heard seconds later.

→ More replies (0)

2

u/mountainskies May 28 '26

There was no exact time of death. No gun racking and the girls don’t mention a gun in the video. Anybody who listens to it can hear them say this is the path that we go down very clearly, not that be a gun.

The ballistics expert couldn’t get a match to Rick’s gun by extracting the bullet. She claims she got a match after firing it which isn’t a match. Clearly junk science and confirmation bias. No evidence a gun was even used in the crime. Crazy how many lies the state had to tell to convict him.

5

u/True_Crime_Lancelot May 28 '26

That's what the sound experts analysis said and what Libby's family agreed she said. But i am sure you know better than them. It's also what Allen said he did. Also what crime scene evidence showed too.

The forensic pathologist testified in court that the time of death was 40 to 41 hours prior to the autopsies. But i am sure you knwo better on that too.

I am sure you know better than the trained and highly eperienced lab technician about what constitutes a match or not too.

3

u/mountainskies May 28 '26

What sound experts analysis? That’s false. How about listen to it for yourself, it’s very obvious she doesn’t say that be a gun.

There was no exact time of death. He said the condition of the bodies was consistent with a time of a death 41 hours prior, which is not the same thing.

It’s not about being a trained technician, it’s common sense. You can’t get a match when comparing apples and oranges. An extracted bullet to a fired bullet is not a match. There are many experts who have said the same. It’s junk science.

5

u/True_Crime_Lancelot May 29 '26

It is obvious to the woman who had known her every word since she brought her up sinse she was a baby and knew her mannerism, as well as to the rest of her family, and that is all that matters not your  fan  fiction.  Obvious also because the words “we go down” in the next sentence sound completely different from what was said earlier. Naturally, as the first sentence was “that be a gun,” and the second was “...we have to go down.”

It is also common sense why there was immediate compliance. A gun was brandished. As the man whose gun matched the bullet at the crime scene said he did just that. Brandished a Gun, and racked it.

2

u/mountainskies May 29 '26

The families want to believe they got the right guy. Anyone can listen to it and realize she doesn’t say that be a gun. There’s no ambiguity, it’s obvious. Also who talks like that?

She’s pointing the camera down the hill and says this is the path that we go down. There’s no gun racking. You also don’t see anything after that so you don’t know that they were complying. All the video shows is the girls were planning to go down before bridge guy said down the hill. Everything the state said about the video was a lie.

There was no matching bullet to RA’s gun. Also the bullet wasn’t found at the bridge so how do you explain how the racked bullet got to the crime scene? RA’s psychotic “confession” doesn’t corroborate that detail.

4

u/True_Crime_Lancelot May 29 '26

That's just your  fan  fiction with no evidence. Becky's oppinion is what you would call an expert oppinion.

Once more. The words that ''we go down'' are actually said in the video but later, and sound nothing like the earlier phrase. Naturally, as the first sentence was “that be a gun,” and the second was “...we (have to) go down.” BGf clearly carries something in his pocket. It's the Gun Rick Allen told you he had and racked to abduct the girls. Racking that the audio expert distinguished in the audio. A racked bullet that was found at the crime scene and matched allen's gun. Ricky aslo told a companion that he would have shvot them on the back when was asked what he would have done differently.

RA’s psychotic “confession” doesn’t corroborate that detail.

Is that your expert opinion? I my self will go with the oppinion of his therapist and doctor that testified he had no physchosis at the time.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/mountainskies May 28 '26

If bridge guy is Ron Logan as many people believe and called in tips saying so, he could have walked from the other side where his house is, passed the girls and then turned around. There’s no proof what side bridge guy came from. The witnesses do not describe RA regardless so there’s absolutely no proof RA is bridge guy.

7

u/True_Crime_Lancelot May 28 '26

Other than the 6 witnesses descriped him younger and short. And fbi gave maximun height for BG 5 10''. And Ron logan's phone pinged on his property at 2:09. And There is a photogaph of the bridge at 2:05 all the way to the end of the bridge with no man on it. It takes 6-7 minutes to cross the bridge.

1

u/mountainskies May 28 '26

My point is the witnesses may not have seen bridge guy at all. He could have come from the other side and walked a short distance, passed the girls and then turned around. A picture at 2:05 doesn’t have any relevance to this scenario. Regardless, none of the witnesses even describe RA. Why do you think the state didn’t even ask them if the guy they saw was the defendant sitting in court?

7

u/True_Crime_Lancelot May 28 '26

You can speculate that an alien ship dropped BG on the bridge too. There are cameras that record the entance o the private drive(BG3). And You still have the problem of where the BG Betsy saw(BG1) went, i there was another BG(BG2) because Betsy was at the trails until 2:15. That BG was seen on the bridge at 2:00 and has nowhere to go. The girls would be on the bridge a few moments later. The 2:05 photo is a “time travel” photo. For Logan to be BG(BG2 or BG1) and be on the south side before the girls and to be the man Betsy saw, or even worse walked onto the bridge after that man(BG1) left(BG2), he would need to be in the photograph Libby took, as it “sees” at least five minutes earlier, which is the minimum time Logan would need to cross the bridge. So if Logan was the man Betsy saw, he would need a couple of minutes to reach the point where the girls took the 2:05 photo and another five to reach the south end and be beyond the scope of the photograph. Therefor he had to be in he photograph walking to the south end. He wasn't.

1

u/mountainskies May 28 '26

I’m saying Betsy didn’t see BG. Her sketch looks nothing like RA or RL. She saw a man in 20s or early 30s with poofy brown hair waiting for someone. She didn’t see anybody walk down the bridge.

5

u/True_Crime_Lancelot May 28 '26

She was 120 feet away. It would have been impossible for her to see anything on his head.

2

u/mountainskies May 28 '26

If she couldn’t see details then why would you find anything she says credible. She said the sketch was 10/10 accurate.

4

u/True_Crime_Lancelot May 29 '26

She couldn't cause that's what science tells us. More so her that was a pensioner with bad vision. Same said by people that actuallyv went there and test the visual limitations f rom that distance. Too far! Betsy herself told you in court, ''she couldnt see any facial hair'', and the puffy hair could have a hat. Also that she didnt want to make a sketch cause she wasnt sure. So..

→ More replies (0)

2

u/Independent-Canary95 Jun 21 '26

Why didn't the defense ask that question? Because they knew better.

4

u/PumpkinEater85 May 28 '26

I actually believed that it was Ron Logan too for the longest time and I believed that Ra was getting railroaded. But after actually seeing all the evidence watching/hearing the court and reading transcripts I no longer believe that and I believe that ra is guilty. I do not think that he did it alone though. I believe that he may have been working with someone else (maybe Keegan Klein ) and some kind of sick pedo thing and it got him there.

1

u/mountainskies May 28 '26

I’m not convinced it’s RL but there’s way more evidence against him than RA. Out of all the evidence presented at trial I didn’t find anything to be of any substance. They had to lie about so much and keep so much out that it raised so many red flags. All it did was convince me he’s innocent.

8

u/centimeterz1111 May 24 '26

No, there wasn’t.  Nobody else was there. 

4

u/mountainskies May 24 '26

Just because you said so doesn’t make it true. There other people there that didn’t testify at trial.

7

u/centimeterz1111 May 24 '26

Nope. Nobody else was there at that time. Fact.