Page 7 Paragraph 2. I assumed the 1st meet didn't go as planned so she didn't get the product, but perhaps she did. Is an hour time enough to make dabs? Who knows. Then it would make sense when she said she was going back to get the money. Source 1 never says they made the dabs or that she actually got the pot. He speaks in future tense so its difficult to say.
seems like she was meeting the suspect to buy some pot to make dabs to then sell back to suspect to make money of th deal, but because she showed up with the dog and/or the friend he took her original amount of money for the pot she was going to make dabs and called off the deal before giving her the pot??? .... She last told her friend to watch my dog i'm going to get my money back. Maybe he wasn't expecting a confrontation. At this time suspect is desperate as he knew there was a witness..... Who knows if he even had pot, maybe he just wanted some money?! I read her obituary and it said she was fearless.. She got stiffed and went to get her investment back and things turned as they did? my opinion only!!!! I'm new here but been following this case closely this is my first comment I hope I didn't break any rules! just trying to make sense of all of this...
I'm confused with the "dabs" reference, also.OK, I'll bite. Was it called hashish back then. Now it's more refined and called dabs? Am I on the right track?
I would like to say something about Kaytlynn and the whole drug/drug dealing issue. Kaytlynn did not deserve to die. Drugs and dealing cut across all ages and span the skin color spectrum. There has been an epidemic of youth dying in drug deals and using drugs for a very long time, which is horrifying and should outrage us all. I am not sure (as are all us unsure) that Kaytlynn was lured or duped or sought out or had done this just this once or a hundred time. I would love us to take care that we don't get in the trap of her age, gender, or race giving us pause and not allowing us to see that she and Source 1 may have entered into this arrangement willingly and chose to make dab. Again, I am not implying that her actions should result in her death or taking away that the murder was horrific and totally unjustified.
I would like to say something about Kaytlynn and the whole drug/drug dealing issue. Kaytlynn did not deserve to die. Drugs and dealing cut across all ages and span the skin color spectrum. There has been an epidemic of youth dying in drug deals and using drugs for a very long time, which is horrifying and should outrage us all. I am not sure (as are all us unsure) that Kaytlynn was lured or duped or sought out or had done this just this once or a hundred time. I would love us to take care that we don't get in the trap of her age, gender, or race giving us pause and not allowing us to see that she and Source 1 may have entered into this arrangement willingly and chose to make dab. Again, I am not implying that her actions should result in her death or taking away that the murder was horrific and totally unjustified.
Sorry, but I can't agree with you at this time. If it comes out in the trial that Kaytlynn was a long time drug dealer and/or user, I'll agree with you then. There is nothing that has been revealed thus far to suggest that she was anything other than an innocent victim of a conniving killer. Naive & a bit greedy, yes, but what teenager on earth wouldn't want $300.00? Let's don't damn her until we know the full story.
Quoting Gardener1850:
BBM. See the second paragraph on page 4: https://assets.documentcloud.org/doc...57/PC36785.pdf
----------------------------------------------------------
It clearly says "source 1 was at Kaytlynn's apartment smoking marijuana."
Nowhere does it say SHE was. Maybe she was, but that is NOT what it says
Sounds like Source 1 and the killer were probably both bad news and she was naive.
My thoughts exactly, I was shocked when I read it was drug related in this case... Hard to wrap your head around that.. I hope if anything it brings awareness.
Yes, it says "source 1 was at Kaytlynn's apartment smoking marijuana." and I doubt Source 1 was smoking by himself. I formed my opinion based on the legal documents available to me and if I'm wrong I'll find out when the autopsy results are made public. Just a guess, but I'd bet Gardener1850 did the same. I understand you are new to Websleuths and still learning...I joined this group about 8 years ago and this post makes (I believe) number 6 for me. This group is all about opinions and discussing the different ideas the members have. In MY opinion your reply to Gardener1850 was rude and not necessary. I assume you know that words posted in capitals is considered YELLING...that alone can make a world of difference in what you mean and how it comes across to the ones reading your post. Bottom line is we all have opinions and are entitled to them...kinda like this very post I am replying to. You said "Sounds like Source 1 and the killer were probably both bad news and she was naive" and I don't agree.Yes, she probably was naive and yes, the killer was for sure bad news but IMO just because Source 1 smoked pot certainly does not make him bad news and by no means should be compared to a murderer.
Why in the world di it take so long for them to arrest him? I just don't understand that.
Honestly it's possible. On tv and in movies people get knocked out with hard objects like hammers ECT all the time and I think most young people don't understand how easy it actually is to kill someone by hitting them in the headAnd someone from her support page said maybe the suspect wasn't trying to kill her, just knock her out. Yeah right!
Honestly it's possible. On tv and in movies people get knocked out with hard objects like hammers ECT all the time and I think most young people don't understand how easy it actually is to kill someone by hitting them in the head