You and OakOak have the same theory as to the 2d dancer being a thief.
I still don't feel like I have a good handle on whether the guys paid the $800 up front (which I would expect) and then took the money back or let the gals run off with it, or if they didn't pay up front and maybe never paid at all, or maybe only paid $100.
If there is a good source for the neighbor overhearing "they're leaving with our money" then that would tend to strongly support the idea the guys paid up front and never got their money back. Maybe the guys split it 8 ways, and one was consoling the other on his lost $100.
The accuser first told police that they stole $2000 from her according to the very first police report, and then later must have changed that story to they stole $400 from her because that was the story in the later, first search warrant affidavit.
So if the guys did pay the $800, each one had $400, the gentleman who put the accuser in the car put her purse in there too but not her makeup kit or cellphone which he overlooked in the yard, and then Kim took the $400 out of her purse when she noticed the accuser was out of it. That would explain trying to dump her at Kroger, and if the accuser or her pimp called up a day or two later to ask about the $400, Kim has the perfect response: the guy who put her in the car must have taken it out of her purse.
There was $400 in $20 bills found in the house, per the search warrant. I think some of the guys took her $400 back. She probably already had the $160 from an earlier trick.