Professor,
While I agree completely with your conclusion that the Tomb of Jesus promotes an indefensible theory, I've just finished watching the first part of your interview with John Ankerberg, and to part of the second part. I must say that I am disappointed with the inaccuracies in the claims I heard on that program - at least with regard to the Discovery Channel "documentary" on the subject. Perhaps you were responding to claims that went beyond what was on the program, but...
The program didn't claim that the "Matthew" in the tomb was the disciple. They rejected that possibility. What they claimed is that because variants of the name "Matthew" appear so often in Mary's genealogy, it's possible that Matthew was a previously unnamed relative.
As for the use of the name "Judas" for a son of Jesus - the program suggested that "Judas" was born before the betrayal took place (ignoring Jesus's knowing what would happen and/or accepting the account in the gnostic gospel of Judas that Judas was actually Jesus's "best buddy." I don't buy the latter in the least, but I know someone who does). In fact, the program suggested that the boy was quite a bit older than 3 at the time of the crucifixion.
A third difficulty deals with the failure on their part to do more extensive DNA testing. You claimed they gave poor excuses, but one excuse they gave was reasonable - they didn't find any material in the other ossuaries that could produce DNA. Their description was that the ossuaries were virtually "vacuum cleaned" with the exception of those two.
There was also a comment about the resurrection, something to the effect that if Jesus's bones were still around after three days.... They were - because He didn't ascend into heaven the day He rose from the dead.
With so much mis-information being tossed about by proponents of the theory, I regret to see "my side" doing the same.