Problem: A friend asked me to answer this question: What are the full names of the men that were sentenced to death?, using the article: In Bridger's Wells, Nevada in 1885, Art Croft and Gil Carter ride into town and enter Darby's Saloon. The atmosphere is subdued due to recent incidents of cattle-rustling. Art and Gil are suspected to be rustlers because they have rarely been seen in town. A man enters the saloon and announces that a rancher named Larry Kinkaid has been murdered. The townspeople immediately form a posse to pursue the murderers, who they believe are cattle rustlers. A judge tells the posse that it must bring the suspects back for trial, and that its formation by a deputy (the sheriff being out of town) is illegal. Art and Gil join the posse to avoid raising even more suspicion. Davies, who was initially opposed to forming the posse, also joins, along with "Major" Tetley and his son Gerald. Poncho informs the posse that three men and cattle bearing Kinkaid's brand have just entered Bridger's Pass. The posse encounters a stagecoach. When they try to stop it, the stagecoach guard assumes that it is a stickup, and shoots, wounding Art. In the coach are Rose Mapen, Gil's ex-girlfriend, and her new husband, Swanson. Later that night in Ox-Bow Canyon, the posse finds three men sleeping, with what are presumed to be stolen cattle nearby. The posse interrogates them: a young, well-spoken man, Donald Martin; a Mexican, Juan Martinez; and an old man, Alva Hardwicke (Francis Ford, brother of film director John Ford). Martin claims that he purchased the cattle from Kinkaid but received no bill of sale. No one believes Martin, and the posse decides to hang the three men at sunrise. Martin writes a letter to his wife and asks Davies, the only member of the posse that he trusts, to deliver it. Davies reads the letter, and, hoping to save Martin's life, shows it to the others. Davies believes that Martin is innocent and does not deserve to die., what would be the answer ?

A: Juan Martinez
Problem: Given the question: A friend asked me to answer this question: What is the name of the person whose remains were moved to the prestigious Volkovskoye or Alexander Nevsky Cemetery?, using the article: Shostakovich scholar Laurel Fay suggests that this concert was "an event of legendary import all by itself". Journalist Michael Tumely calls it "a legendary moment in Soviet political and military history". Critic U.S. Dhuga suggests that this performance "was popularly and, of course, officially recognized as the prelude to actual victory over the Germans". The blockade was breached in early 1943 and ended in 1944. Eliasberg concurred with Dhuga's assessment, saying that "the whole city had found its humanity ... in that moment, we triumphed over the soulless Nazi war machine". There was no official recognition of the significance of the concert: one musician noted that afterwards "there was no feedback, nothing until 1945".Shostakovich's Symphony No. 7 enjoyed a measure of popularity throughout the Western world during the war, but from 1945 it was rarely performed outside the Soviet Union. It became a point of controversy in the 1980s after Solomon Volkov's Testimony suggested it was a critique not of the Nazis, but of the Soviet government. The veracity of Volkov's account, which he claims is rooted in interviews with Shostakovich, has been debated. Other issues of contention about the symphony include whether it was inspired by the attack on Leningrad (as Soviet authorities and official accounts had asserted) or planned earlier and repurposed for propaganda, as well as its artistic merit compared to Shostakovich's other works.The premiere made Eliasberg a "hero of the city". Shortly after the concert, he married Nina Bronnikova, who had played the piano part. But once the siege ended and the Philharmonic returned to Leningrad, he fell from favour. The conductor of the Philharmonic, Yevgeny Mravinsky, had him fired in 1950 because he envied Eliasberg's popular acclaim. Eliasberg was a "poor and largely forgotten" travelling conductor when he died in 1978. However, at the fifty-year anniversary of the premiere his remains were moved to the prestigious Volkovskoye or Alexander Nevsky Cemetery, the..., what would be the answer ?
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
The answer is:
Eliasberg
[Q]: A friend asked me to answer this question: What is the first name of the person who conveyed the view of the Attorney-General that the magistrates were incorrect to declare 9 August meeting illegal?, using the article: Against this background, a "great assembly" was organised by the Manchester Patriotic Union formed by radicals from the Manchester Observer. The newspaper's founder Joseph Johnson was the union's secretary. He wrote to Henry Hunt asking him to chair a meeting in Manchester on 2 August 1819. Johnson wrote: Nothing but ruin and starvation stare one in the face [in the streets of Manchester and the surrounding towns], the state of this district is truly dreadful, and I believe nothing but the greatest exertions can prevent an insurrection. Oh, that you in London were prepared for it. Unknown to Johnson and Hunt, the letter was intercepted by government spies and copied before being sent to its destination. The contents were interpreted to mean that an insurrection was being planned, and the government responded by ordering the 15th Hussars to Manchester. The mass public meeting planned for 2 August was delayed until 9 August. The Manchester Observer reported it was called "to take into consideration the most speedy and effectual mode of obtaining Radical reform in the Common House of Parliament" and "to consider the propriety of the 'Unrepresented Inhabitants of Manchester' electing a person to represent them in Parliament". The magistrates, led by William Hulton, had been advised by the acting Home Secretary, Henry Hobhouse, that "the election of a member of parliament without the King's writ" was a serious misdemeanour, encouraging them to declare the assembly illegal as soon as it was announced on 31 July. The radicals sought a second opinion on the meeting's legality which was that "The intention of choosing Representatives, contrary to the existing law, tends greatly to render the proposed Meeting seditious; under those circumstances it would be deemed justifiable in the Magistrates to prevent such Meeting."On 3 August, Hobhouse conveyed the view of the Attorney-General that the magistrates were incorrect to declare 9 August meeting illegal as it was called to consider the election of a representative and..., what would be the answer ?
****
[A]:
Henry