I've said it before and I will say it again, the things that are tweeted and the things that actually happen in court don't always line up or tell the whole story. Reporters are essentially sales people trying to sell a story, and stories get dry and boring when they don't add some mystery to them. The story of Scotty was explained to the crown's satisfaction that day in court, but in the tweets and reports he seems like a mystery still. That is intentional on the part of the media, if everything was explained, there would be no mystery, nothing to talk about to keep you coming back, in my opinion.
The people who were present that day in court heard the crown ask what she thought that text meant when she got that text. She explained that she thought he was sick, and she says that she told Scotty that DM was sick. Hours later she got the text saying that DM thought that he was being set up, and the crown asked what she thought then, if she still thought the previous text had meant that he was sick, and she replied no, not after having received the text about the set up.
She explained who Scotty was, gave his last name, told how they met, and there was no mystery left by the time the crown finished their questions about him.
Remember that LE had her phone, and since she had been recieving and sending texts to Scotty, they had his name and number, they could verify who Scotty was, and what texts were sent between them. I have a feeling that if her texts to Scotty had contradicted the idea that she thought DM was ill, that the crown would have presented those texts to discredit the witness. They didn't, and there is no need for the crown to produce evidence that proves a witness is telling the truth, it is only their job to produce evidence that a witness may be lying if they think that, and again, they didn't.
