I think you're right about that. I'm not an expert, so either Gibbs', for some reason, couldn't do it - perhaps time was an issue, perhaps it wouldn't guarantee re-insertion of the tube and a new review would take longer than an acceptable window of time.
Either that, or he's not a very good lawyer. I think everyone's hands were tied with the tube being taken out. That's why, among the most damnable aspects of this case, it is stupefying that the judiciary - heck, at least the legislature - would have at LEAST said, 'put the tube back in so we can have a fresh look at this without a shot-clock to worry about.'
This isn't the first time the tube was removed, is it? I thought I read that they had tried to do this a couple of years ago.
If that's true, they've had plenty of time to look at the issue. I wonder why they waited until now to deal with this.
Well, that is certainly the opinion of Nick Danger on FR; if you read his posts, he's been railing about this for the last three days. So has Torie.