instruction:
In this task, you're expected to write answers to questions involving multiple references to the same entity. The answer to the question should be unambiguous and a phrase in the paragraph. Most questions can have only one correct answer.
question:
Passage: Spoiled playboy Bob Merrick's (Rock Hudson) reckless behaviour causes him to lose control of his speedboat. Rescuers send for the nearest resuscitator, located in Dr. Phillips's house across the lake. While the resuscitator is being used to save Merrick, Dr. Phillips suffers a heart attack and dies. Merrick ends up a patient at Dr. Phillips's clinic, where most of the doctors and nurses resent the fact that Merrick inadvertently caused Dr. Phillips's death.
Helen Phillips, Dr. Phillips's widow, receives a flood of calls, letters, and visitors all offering to pay back loans that Dr. Phillips refused to accept repayment of during his life. Many claimed he refused by saying "it was already used up." Edward Randolph, a famous artist and Dr. Phillips's close friend, explains to Helen what that phrase means. This helps her to understand why her husband left little money, even though he had a very successful practice.
Merrick discovers why everyone dislikes him. He runs from the clinic but collapses in front of Helen's car and ends up back at the hospital, where she learns his true identity. After his discharge, Merrick leaves a party, drunk. Merrick runs off the road and ends up at the home of Edward Randolph, who recognizes him. Randolph explains the secret belief that powered his own art and Dr. Phillips's success. Merrick decides to try out this new philosophy. His first attempt causes Helen to step into the path of a car while trying to run away from Merrick's advances. She is left blind as a result of this accident.
Merrick soberly commits to becoming a doctor, trying to fulfill Dr. Phillips's legacy. He also has fallen in love with Helen and secretly helps her adjust to her blindness under the guise of being simply a poor medical student, Robby.
Question: What is the last name of the person who understands why her husband left little money?
answer:
Phillips.

question:
Passage: A prologue explains the role of the bounty hunter. A wanted criminal named Burch tries to ambush bounty hunter Jim Kipp, but Kipp gets the better of him. Kipp takes Burch's corpse into town to collect the reward. A representative of the Pinkerton Detective Agency asks Kipp to hunt a trio of fugitives. Three masked men committed a robbery and fled with $100,000. Kipp, who has the reputation that he will do anything for money, is offered a huge reward if he can capture the culprits dead or alive.
Kipp rides into the town of Twin Forks, and uses an alias. He seeks information about one fugitive's wounds from Dr. Spencer, who is wary of revealing too much. Kipp is immediately attracted to the doctor's daughter, Julie. A limping man named Bill Rachin, who works at the hotel, draws Kipp's suspicion. So does George Williams, a card dealer. Williams' wife, Alice, flirts with Kipp and tries to coax information out of him. Kipp does not reveal the purpose for his visit.
Vance Edwards identifies Kipp and his reputation as a bounty hunter. Edwards mistakenly believes Kipp is seeking him for another crime. The townspeople become anxious as the truth about Kipp becomes known. Led by the postmaster, Danvers, they offer Kipp a bribe to leave town. Kipp tells several people that he is expecting a package on the next day's stagecoach and in the package is a likeness of one of the robbers. Dr. Spencer later overhears Kipp telling his daughter the same thing and he becomes worried.
Question: What is the first name of the person that Kipp tells something to that makes Dr. Spencer worried?
answer:
Julie.

question:
Passage: On 1 March 1849, Brown was charged with the murder of "unknown aboriginal natives". In late March or early April he appeared before a local magistrate in the district, Captain G. V. Butler, who committed him for trial. In May, Butler wrote a letter to Charles Hervey Bagot, a member of the South Australian Legislative Council, in which he listed the victims as one "old man blind and infirm", three female adults, two teenage girls (aged 15 and 12 years), and three female children (aged two years, 18 months, and a baby). Butler added that there was "little question of the butchery or the butcher".Brown's trial came before the Supreme Court in Adelaide on 11 June 1849. The presiding judge considered that the evidence presented was insufficient, and gave the prosecution another week to investigate. The weakness of the case was directly related to the provisions of the Aboriginal Witnesses Act of 1848 regarding testimony given by Aboriginal witnesses. It was generally believed that Aboriginal people could not understand the oath, but the Act allowed unsworn testimony to be offered by Aboriginal witnesses, with two significant limitations. The court could determine the weight and credibility to be given to Aboriginal testimony, but even more telling was the restriction that when the punishment for a crime was death or transportation, the evidence of an "uncivilised person or persons" was considered insufficient unless corroborated by other evidence. A week later, the judge remained unconvinced about the strength of the prosecution, but given "great suspicion rested on the case", he gave the prosecution a further extension of time, and released Brown on bail of 500.In July 1849, the South Australian Advocate General produced a summary of the investigation to date. Several difficulties were detailed, including the fact that Parker denied any knowledge of the crime, as did others who were believed to have heard the incident, discussed in Brown's presence. Brown's co-accused, Eastwood, alias "Yorkie", had fled when the investigation began and had apparently left the colony aboard a whaling ship off Kangaroo Island. An important witness named Joice had gone to the neighbouring Port Phillip District of the colony of New South Wales, and Leandermin himself, who it appears was being detained at Guichen Bay, absconded and had allegedly been "made away with". The remaining witnesses were those that knew Brown, and apparently would not give evidence against him. Despite the extremely difficult task faced by the prosecution under these circumstances, the Advocate General ordered that investigations continue and issued warrants for the arrest of those that had fled South Australia. Brown appeared at the Supreme Court yet again on 10 and 28 September, but the judge again refused to hear the case without further evidence. By the November sittings of the court, Brown's case had been removed from the listings, and this was the end of the matter as far as the formal investigation was concerned. Effectively, settler solidarity and the law of evidence ensured that Brown was never tried for the murders, despite the fact that those involved in the investigation had no doubt of his guilt. Possibly in response to Brown's case, the Aboriginal Witnesses Act of 1848 was amended in July 1849 to allow a person to be convicted on the sole testimony of an Aboriginal person.
Question: Who released Brown on bond?
answer:
The presiding judge.