I don't think the phone argument is very convincing and certainly would not be enough to convict him. He could say he drove to the crime scene a couple of times because he was interested in the case. Not too far fetched, considering him being a criminology student. They really need to convict him with his DNA on the murder weapon or some other item that was in close vicinity to the victims.
All the phone pings cited in the affidavit are before it was known to be a crime scene:
- 12 occasions in the months leading up to the deed ie.stalking/casing
- A few other occasions on the night of the crime (at home, just leaving his home, then returning after the crime, punctuated by a mind bogglingly idiotic conspicuous lack of pinging during the crime window itself lol)
- 1 occasion 9am a few hours after the crime , and before the 911 call (see if any fuss, glory in his work or if he could recover the sheath)
The 8 hour gap before the 911 call is a curiosity,we now know that one of the survivors saw him walk by, was petrified and locked the door. Yet no 911 call until midday. Lot of theories floating around and the poor girl is getting crucified online , but no doubt the reasons why will come out in the trial