If you're going to operate a vehicle in public you have certain responsibilities in how you use it, and that includes bicycles.
Cyclists mustn't ride on pavements by law, unless they're explicitly designated as permissible to ride on. Since nobody seems to know whether this pavement was or wasn't considered to be shared use, it's obviously not explicitly designated as such, so cyclists really should assume it's not permitted or safe to ride there. It would be reasonable for a pedestrian to assume that a cyclist riding on that pavement is the type of person to break the law and disregard the safety of more vulnerable road users, and understandable for them to be fearful and/or angry about that apparently selfish and reckless behaviour. Shouting, swearing and gesticulating isn't nice behaviour and can be criminal, but breaking the law in a way that puts more vulnerable people at risk and causes them fear isn't particularly nice either.
Whether shared use or not, cyclists shouldn't be traveling at reckless or dangerous speeds. Pavements are full of vulnerable people who may suddenly appear from nowhere or move unpredictably at a wide range of different speeds, who might not be able to see you or hear you, predict your trajectory, quickly change course or step out of the way, and who may be disproportionately affected by any physical impact. You should never expect pedestrians to be able to move for you and should always be travelling at a speed which allows you to stop or safely adjust your course in plenty of time. If the cyclist wasn't able to stop or to change to a safe course before reaching the pedestrian, she was travelling too fast.
If you're going to operate a vehicle you should be able to maintain control of the vehicle even in the face of unpleasant distractions like someone shouting, swearing and gesturing at you. You should also have situational awareness, so that you know what's on the road to the right of you, and what's in front of and (ideally) behind you. The pedestrian was walking centrally on the pavement as she had been all along (and had every right to be). If there was no room to go past on the left, and busy traffic to the right, the cyclist should've been aware enough of that traffic not to swerve dangerously into it.
It doesn't seem to be clear whether the "contact" was the light brush of a finger of a gesturing hand, or a hefty shove, or something in between, but as it's not been taken into account in the verdict, I'll leave it at saying that obviously a push would make this a very different situation. Without a push, my opinion based only on what I've seen and read is that the cyclist died through her own carelessness. She was riding somewhere she wasn't explicitly permitted to take that kind of vehicle, travelling too fast to safely respond to the situation, lacked situational awareness and didn't maintain control of her vehicle. The pedestrian probably did commit a public order offence in her angry response to what appeared to be a lawbreaker putting her at risk, but lobbing yourself into traffic because of that is hardly a proportional, predictable or understandable response.