Given a paragraph about movies, and a set of conversational question answers about the paragraph, answer a follow-up question from the paragraph. The paragraph has the prefix 'CONTEXT:'. Each conversation question has a prefix `Q:` followed by the answer prefix `A:`, and the follow-up question has a prefix `FOLLOWUP_Q:`.
--------
Question: CONTEXT: The money belonged to Barr so it had his fingerprints on it. The gun was also Barr's as was the van. The whole point of Charlie's actions were to frame Barr for the killing. He had befriended Barr to get close to him and was close enough to be able to drug him and take the various pieces of property away from Barr's house and to return them with incriminating evidence without Barr realising he'd been set up. If I remember correctly the movie shows a jar filled with coins on Barr's desk. Presumably Charlie just took one of these to leave that final piece of incriminating evidence in the multi-story car park.  <sep>  Q: How did Charlie get Barr Finger prints? A: The money belonged to Barr so it had his fingerprints on it  Q: How does that explain the scene with the coin? A: If I remember correctly the movie shows a jar filled with coins on Barr's desk  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Did he use the coin to get the prints?

Answer: Presumably Charlie just took one of these to leave that final piece of incriminating evidence in the multi-story car park


Question: CONTEXT: Spider-Man: Homecoming is following the Captain America: Civil War. I've seen the same trailer - and the clip with Spidey holding Cap's shield seems to be lifted straight from the CA:CW movie during the airport fight. Later in the trailer (or in another trailer), Peter is boasting to his friend about meeting Iron Man and the Avengers, and how he stole Captain America's shield from him.  <sep>  Q: Why did I see Spider-Man with Captain America's shield in his hand? A: he stole Captain America's shield from him  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: When did he do that?

Answer: during the airport fight


Question: CONTEXT: For US Federal civilian employees, there is no prohibition against having spouses (or immediate family members) working in the same agency or even the same unit. The only prohibition is that one of them cannot be in a supervisory chain of command above the other (conflict of interest/nepotism). I'm fairly certain state agencies would have similar restrictions as well. As in any workplace setting, it depends on the culture of the agency (fictional CBI in this instance) or personalities of those involved/affected on how much coworker dating relationships are on the down-low. It can vary. Normally it's not a big deal unless a supervisor starts dating his/her subordinate or something like that. It looks like the CBI in this case prefers keep personal relationships to a minimal so that it won't adversely affect decisions out in the field. So the characters might want keep it on the DL just to avoid it coming up in office politics/rumor mill/etc.  <sep>  Q: Is it forbidden to have a relationship in CBI in reality? A: It looks like the CBI in this case prefers keep personal relationships to a minimal so that it won't adversely affect decisions out in the field  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Is CBI a real thing in America or was it made up for the Mentalist?

Answer:
fictional CBI in this instance