That is entirely possible. I know Freeper lawyers on another thread have no faith in him since any of his rulings aren't to be based on past testimony or evidence. This is all supposed to be De Novo. And he made that statement to Gibbs based on old evidence.
That's because he decided to mess with this case as an emergency injuction type of case. Rather than realize that Terri has the emergency of death hanging over her, and it's his responsibility to preserve her while he dithers, he looked at it like this: if Gibbs cannot show me enough to make me thing he could very well win in a de novo trial, and I have not seen it based on the old trial record and the new filings, then I am inclined to not grant his emergency relief for Terri. If the judge were following the de novo aspect of the law, he would rehydrate Terri and begin a new trial. If not, he would pass on it somehow and give Gibbs an appealable issue to the Atlanta court. He is doing none of these things, while Terri moves closer and closer to irreversible damage. That is what it looks like to me, and I say that knowing that all of us, myself included, are fallible and do make erroneous judgements.