I would say the 'cockroach in the muffin' so to speak is the point the Rabbi DID NOT address, which was the resurrection of Jesus itself, of which all 4 Gospels are all in agreement that it did happen. Anyone see that?
The 4 gospels mention people who are there and things that were said. The Rabbi is presenting it as if each Gospel writer is saying that the only people mentioned were there. No one is saying that.
The events following that were mentioned would be an issue if they excluded or somehow made impossible what the other gospel witnesses said, which they didnt.
The accident witness example the Rabbi gives misses the same point that his dealing with the resurrction does....the fact that no one said the accident DID NOT happen. Same with the Gospel accounts.
So how would that happen? The witnesses all agree the accident happened but not on the details, so the case would be thrown out and then say it never happened because they each mention certain things that are left out by others?
The point is that they all agree that the resurrection happened. The main point of the Gospels is to inform of that, and the Rabbi is focusing on MAKING detail conflicts in order to toss the whole "muffin" .
I would argue the cockroach is in the muffin he is serving.