ABC News/the "he" they refer to is Baldwin: "He said the prosecution's timeline puts Allen in a parking lot near the trial (typo/trail) at 1:30 p.m. but his cellphone data shows he was gone by 2:15 p.m."
Okay, so the prosecution's timeline puts RA there at 1:30. Correct, that's what the P believes. What is the D saying about what his cellphone data shows-- either through activity or lack thereof-- for 1:30?
And per D, RA's cellphone data shows he was gone by 2:15. Shows it how? There's no other way for the phone to "show" it than through activity or a lack of activity. All I get from this statement is that D is probably saying there is no activity on the phone after 2:15, unless they can show activity/signals at another location, which I'd guess we'd probably already be aware of.
However, the D never said anything about activity or inactivity on that phone up to 1:30, and between 1:30 and 2:15. And my guess is that the reason for the D's wording on this-- using the prosecution's timeline for the 1:30 mark instead of the actual data-- may likely be that RA had no phone at all on him that day on the trail. But the implication in the way it has been worded is a phone that was in the area but dropped off at 2:15.
I don't think so. MOO, definitely could be wrong, but I still suspect RA had no phone. And I believe the P's timeline is the correct one, and believing that, the D is very close in my mind to noting here that RA had no activity in that timeframe. Was there activity from someplace else on RA's phone after the 2:15 mark? If so, I think it's likely we'd already know that, but we'll see.