Thanks for your comments  To clarify I dont endorse everything in the article as it currently stands  There is much room for further revision and since the lead among many other things was not written by me I would have no objection to revision of it  My comments were directed to the deliberate removal of all my references to primary source documents and to the perception that Pearson and Nelsons books are reliable sources  In some respects they are but both books also contain egregious factual errors and they cannot be cited without checking the facts cited in them against the primary source documents  Your comment that the transcripts and translations on my site are not considered a reliable source for information puzzles me  If you can demonstrate to me that anything in any one of my transcripts does not accurately reflect the content of the document in question Ill be happy to change it  Ive striven to make the summaries as accurate as possible and I think they are accurate  Moreover my transcripts have the advantage of being in modern spelling and are thus accessible to everyone which the original documents certainly are not being in Latin and in various Elizabethan scripts  As for what you term the glosses and which I term summaries their purpose is to summarize the sometimes very obscure content of the documents for readers and to refer readers to other related documents on the same topic which they might not otherwise be aware of  The glosses summaries are thus a very valuable resource for readers  But again if you can find any instance in which one of my summaries misrepresents the content of a document please let me know and Ill change it  Re the Brinknell incident  The coroners inquest found the death accidental  Your quarrel is with the Elizabethan jurors   Nina Green