Bob has a small online school where he teaches gemology. He has a newsletter that he emails out weekly to anyone that registers for it, but it basically goes to a good number of people in the gemological community. The newsletters normally address consumer fraud or misrepresentation issues, and have a dig here and there against the "industry" itself.
Bob has been sued (defamation/libel) by a company that sells gems because Bob put out a newsletter (actually 2 or 3) saying the company knowingly sold misrepresented gem material to consumers.
Bob is only a gemologist. Bob is not a scientist (PHD), and Bob does not have a research facility. So, he bought a few pieces of gemological equipment and did his own testing to "prove" his claims for his newsletter.
So, the professionals (legit scientists with extensive labs) said "we'd like to see those gems and do free testing to verify your research, and we will publish our findings". Bob agreed, and said he would send his samples out to be tested...
But wait!!! Bob's doesn’t send out samples to be tested, and Bob posts on a forum that his attorney advised him not to send out the samples for testing because 1.) He has to send them out of the country, and 2.) They are in the midst of a lawsuit.
There are some other factors that figure in here too, but I won’t complicate it further…although the story get’s even more interesting!
Since I have been involved in the legal field I have never met an attorney that would refuse FREE corroborating evidence from a noted or renowned professional, and to have it published is only icing on the cake.
So, what do you think? Is the attorney story fact or fiction? Am I missing something?