Agree, phone data was presented as showing someone was in vicinity or around a location, but not what they were doing there. The defence argued it didn’t pinpoint exact location. Not perfectly pinpoint location but in the vicinity at the time to get the toxin. Maybe the murderer just lent her cell phone to a friend at that time? The cat?
This is an example I think of when circumstantial evidence comes together to bolster other evidence that leads to conviction. For someone to have been in a location, right where the mushrooms were reported to be growing, and then go and purchase a dehydrator, which was later found with traces of toxic mushrooms after being seen on CCTV being dumped by accused … etc etc.