Bond Revoked For Pharmacy Robbery Suspect

March 14, 2011

The woman accused of being the getaway car driver in last September’s armed robbery at a Molino pharmacy is back behind bars.

Judge Ronald Swanson granted Assistant State Attorney Jeff Gaddy’s request to revoke bond for Krystal Lynn Collins, 24. She is facing multiple charges in connection with the robbery at Scott’s Pharmacy, including robbery with a firearm, two counts of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon and multiple felony drug charges.

According to the Escambia County Sheriff’s Office, deputies believe Collins drove the getaway car and took part in the robbery with Joseph Daniel Flowers of Molino. Flowers, who was allegedly wearing  underwear on his head at the time of the holdup, is using the insanity defense.

Flowers was later charged with beating Collins with a two liter bottle of Coke in an unrelated incident.

Both Collins and Flowers remain in the Escambia County Jail without bond.

Pictured: Krystal Lynn Collins (with blond hair in September, 2010) was briefly taken into custody after the September, 2010 robbery of Scott’s Pharmacy in Molino. The inset on the photograph shows her current mugshot. NorthEscambia.com/courtesy photos, click to enlarge.

Comments

19 Responses to “Bond Revoked For Pharmacy Robbery Suspect”

  1. Horrific! on March 15th, 2011 12:23 pm

    The sad thing is with a mothers love and strong guidance this
    girl would have had a chance for a good life AND she could have
    been beautiful inside and out.

    This girl makes me cry for all kids that went wrong and never
    stood a chance. Thats why we need to clean this town up and get
    the bad ones, so the young ones are not influenced and their
    heros are not bad neighbors.

    GRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR

  2. Horrific! on March 15th, 2011 12:17 pm

    lol sure i’m jealous of a thief/drug addict who is ugly inside and out.

  3. David Huie Green on March 15th, 2011 11:22 am

    don’t be jealous

  4. Horrific! on March 15th, 2011 8:43 am

    Horrific thinks you ALL need new GLASSES!

  5. Horrific! on March 15th, 2011 8:42 am

    Well if you guys thing this girl is pretty, your sure easy to please. hahahaha!

  6. Keith on March 14th, 2011 7:23 pm

    I am sure you do have glasses David, But I must assume they are more like Beer Goggles!!!!

  7. Scott on March 14th, 2011 6:49 pm

    I’m just glad ECSO is rounding up the trash in this part of the county & takin it where it belongs.

  8. molino jim on March 14th, 2011 4:51 pm

    DAVID—YOU DID ONE FINE JOB OF GETTING BACK INTO THE GOOD GRACES OF YOUR BRIDE. SMOOTH MOVE.

  9. bjay on March 14th, 2011 4:51 pm

    Looks way better as a blonde. But still far from pretty! Im probably in the minority but I still believe innocent until proven guilty. Although sometimes (like this) its obvious who is guilty, they still have their rights.

  10. Jim W on March 14th, 2011 2:55 pm

    What a stark contrast between the two pictures. There is a very good example of what drugs does to you. No it’s not just the hair color look at the complexion ther is a huge difference. I do have to agree with David blonde looks better on her.

  11. Concerned parent on March 14th, 2011 2:53 pm

    I agree, she looks MUCH better as a blonde.

    David,
    I prefer to think that most women, like fine wines, improve with age. I know I have anyway. I look a lot better than I did in high school.

  12. Wow!!! on March 14th, 2011 1:48 pm

    Wow!!! thinking it will be David who bonds her out!

  13. Citizen X on March 14th, 2011 1:07 pm

    Paul, you are so wrong!! She DOES look better as a blonde!! Male chauvinist finally agreeing with David.

  14. life's_challenging on March 14th, 2011 12:45 pm

    bond revoked,ummm….really??

  15. David Huie Green on March 14th, 2011 12:03 pm

    REGARDING:
    “Paul thinkin David needs glasses”

    I HAVE glasses. I must admit most women looked prettier before I got them but most are still beautiful enough, especially my lovely bride.

    David separating appearances from actions

  16. JoshBaker on March 14th, 2011 9:15 am

    Should have never got bail in the first place. Silly liberals and your slap on the wrist agenda.

  17. Paul on March 14th, 2011 9:01 am

    I wonder if he figured wearing the underwear on his head would help him with an insanity defense? Paul thinkin David needs glasses….

  18. David Huie Green on March 14th, 2011 7:19 am

    Yes, they always need a reason. Otherwise your Constitutional rights as an accused don’t exist. Breaking terms of release, increased danger of flight, other crimes while out. There’s probably other reasons to revoke. It doesn’t spell out which one the judge thinks she violated.

    David thinking she makes a pretty blonde

  19. bjay on March 14th, 2011 1:49 am

    Was there a reason for the bond to be revoked? Do they even need a reason?

Written by William Reynolds · Filed Under News