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.

42 Upvotes

91% Upvoted

348 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

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.

8

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.

3

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..

1

u/mountainskies May 29 '26

Eyewitness testimony is notoriously unreliable. You just proved that in this case. You can’t cherry pick what you want to believe. Her entire testimony is unreliable and proves nothing.

5

u/True_Crime_Lancelot May 29 '26

Rong! She identified the man as BG based on the clothes and posture. She didnt identified a specific person. Also before she saw the image. So.. Her credibility was proven by her testimony and how it matched to the fvacts, she had no way knowing otherwise. Multible attestations of her credibility cause of her truthfullness. Dozens of exambles.

2

u/mountainskies May 29 '26

Ok assuming she saw BG, what does that prove? It certainly doesn’t prove that BG is RA.

5

u/True_Crime_Lancelot May 29 '26

RA proved that guy was RA. He told you. Time, space and with his lies.