Apparently, cell phone data like this usually isn't even admissible in court due to it's limited evidentiary value (you'd need additional corroborating evidence placing the person there, like testimony, camera footage, DNA, etc.)
It also wasn't properly admitted into evidence, and the "expert" who provided this data wasn't called on by the defense to give expert testimony.
I wonder why?
But of course, the posters here who are already convinced of her guilt will ignore this. Nikkas stay falling for the psy-ops. There's a reason this was dropped the way it was; it lends to the salaciousness of the story but falls apart under any sort of scrutiny.