We can use the car in more than one way without violating any part of logic (or common sense). And the matter will ultimately be decided by the Court and the Jury, as trier of fact. I can do it. Others have done it. So there are a group of us doing it. None of us devoid of logic, reason or common sense. Logic, in particular, depends on its premises (and you apparently disagree with some of us about the premises - but the logic is still sound).
There's no legal rule that says the car can't be evidence to more than one other event. I can certainly do it.
The car was not self-driving. Ergo, someone drove the car. If Bryan Kohberger got out of that same car in Clarkston the next day around noon, I feel the burden is on the defense to show that he wasn't the usual driver of the car. He was surely the owner of the car. That's relevant.
That has nothing to do with the time of the murders. But again, the car can be used. It's seen doing a three-point turn and parking near the house, then speeding away about 25 minutes later. That is consistent with what DM saw. So now, the car helps to establish direction of travel as well as possible time of the crime. ME evidence will be presented as well.
The car might also contain evidence, embedded in its various components - it has been taken apart and it will be used as evidence, again.
Yes, the DNA still matters. The car doesn't establish that BK went into the house in the same way that the DNA and DM's testimony does. Taken together, one has to notice that DNA, car, phone records and return to the scene of the crime are all separate data points, each of which establish more than one thing.
IMO. There is no violation of logic.
