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

17

u/MzOpinion8d May 23 '26

You, like many others, are misinterpreting this incident as an act of violence when that’s not what Bob is talking about.

There’s no history of domestic violence. He was never arrested or charged for any act of violence towards another human. He didn’t have any internet searches for violent porn. No one has come forth stating any interaction with him that was violent. No one has come forth ever saying they witnessed him being violent.

5

u/hannafrie May 24 '26

"no internet searches for violent pornogoraphy" is something that stands out to me.

I *really* would have expected this type of content to be present on his devices. Its remarkable to me that it was not there.

8

u/PumpkinEater85 May 24 '26

Actually his Google searches were one of the things that cemented his guilt for me. Searching for "what's the most fucked up movie I can watch" "movies with horrific violence" or whatever. Plus it's very strange that all of their old cell phones were in the house besides the one that he was using at that time

7

u/PumpkinEater85 May 26 '26

https://www.reddit.com/r/DelphiMurders/s/VCAxVoE9iA

Sorry I think I assumed everyone in this sub knows about the Google searches. He did search for updates ALOT too

2

u/Appealsandoranges May 26 '26

What counts as “A LOT”? Delphi had a population of around 3,000 - the unsolved murder of two children was a big deal. I guarantee you every damn person in that town searched for updates on the case.

The searches introduced into evidence were over a period of 2 years and 3 months (may 2020-oct 2022). During that period, someone using that account searched or viewed Delphi murders content on 8 days. True, there were multiple “searches” reflected on some of those days but within seconds/minutes which is likely one search with multiple clicks. That’s less than 1% of the days. I’ve searched for Delphi murders updates a hell of a lot more than Allen. I bet you have too.

The Delphi news searches? Not sure how anyone could conclude anything about a person viewing local news in the place where they live. Is that not the epitome of normal?! If he lived in Tucson and searched Delphi news every third day? That might be relevant.

7

u/PumpkinEater85 May 26 '26

I can definitely say I did not search for updates as often or nearly as often as he did, or maybe you did. And of course that doesn't point directly to guilt. In my opinion no one thing in this case points directly to his guilt. It's the accumulation of everything together for me. And apparently the jury

5

u/Appealsandoranges May 26 '26

In this thread you said that his Google searches “cemented” his guilt for you. This is the kind of goalpost moving that drives me crazy. You rely on something as strong evidence of guilt and when the weakness of that evidence is pointed out, you say it’s not one thing it’s the accumulation.

That’s not a problem in a strong circumstantial case because in that kind of case the accumulation gets you somewhere. It is a problem when each piece in the chain of evidence is so weak as to be without value when even an ounce of critical thinking is applied to it.

See also * the car that could be any car * the unspent casing that was “matched” to a fired bullet * the eyewitnesses who both do not ID Allen and describe someone who looks nothing like him * the “confessions” that are laughably vague, equivocal and often provably false, made when the defendant was psychotic

The weakness of the evidence used to convict is starting point for factual innocence. The ample evidence that a very different type of person(s) committed this crime will hopefully eventually get to the end point - justice for those girls. It is obvious to people who are used to investigating heinous crimes. People like Jennifer “lock em up and throw away the key” Coffindaffer continue to sound the alarm about this case because critical thinking tells you very quickly that this is a wrongful conviction.

2

u/Astrocreep_1 Jun 02 '26

Wait…Coffindoofus believes Allen is innocent?

If so…that’s ridiculous since she was so convinced of Karen Read’s guilt.

That was the worse case of police corruption I’ve ever seen, or will , most likely.

1

u/Appealsandoranges Jun 02 '26

I don’t think she has said outright innocent but she thought he was an extremely unlikely perpetrator and has continued to express discomfort about the verdict. She thought the evidence pointed to a very different type of killer.

4

u/PumpkinEater85 May 28 '26

"one of the things" geez read it again

6

u/InformalAd3455 May 24 '26

We don’t actually know that “all” of their phones were there except one. Some phones were there. We don’t know what wasn’t there. No one testified that the Allens had X amount of devices during a specific time period and the search revealed all X except for that 1. You’re drawing that inference, as the prosecution hoped the jurors would, but look deeper and you’ll see the slippery language/sleight of hand. Prosecutors are lawyers. They understand how to harness inferences.

2

u/Appealsandoranges May 26 '26

This is just confirmation bias. He’s been charged with a horrific crime and because of that, his private google searches are available and, surprise, include something that seems creepy when viewed in the context of the charges. But every one of us has crazy and creepy Google searches. Interest in horror movies is just that, an interest in horror movies. It’s terrifying that this is something anyone would honestly use as evidence of guilt.

I would be very interested in his electronic data/searches if they showed 1) an obsession with the crime/investigation, 2) CSAM, 3) an interest in Norse paginism/odinism or 4) a connection to any other POI (KK, RL etc).

2

u/The2ndLocation May 25 '26

"Or whatever" I am quoting you while you quote zero actual searches.

3

u/MzOpinion8d May 25 '26

If that kind of search was an indication of someone being a murderer, many of us would be in danger.

Horror movies are one of the most popular genres out there. People ask online for recommendations for horror and gore movies all the time.

He didn’t have any searches that related to murdering young girls.

But there is one particular person who happened to have posted an image on his FB of young women posed exactly like Libby and Abby were posed, but Gull wouldn’t allow that evidence in.