As i've already stated, you should have highlighted this section of Mull's article:
"Some of the information used by the BBC came from the annals of the Catholic Church, which kept in-depth internal records of each case. Since these were internal, and hence secret (until recently), their veracity is held in high regard, as forgery would gain nothing. "
"...their veracity is held in high regard, as forgery would gain nothing." CAN HE BE SERIOUS? Nah, the church would never cover up evil now, would she?
I've got to give Mull credit, tho, for admitting that church provided "some" of the information. Looks like it must be the stuff you did highlight.
These were internal trial transcripts. To believe that these records were forged is like believing that the records of common criminal trials today are forged. Moreover, these transcripts only constituted part of the evidence examined by the scholars.
Additionally, why do you trust documented false accounts? It looks to me that you're fitting the evidence to your preconceived ideas, rather than pursuing the truth.
As pseudo-justin posted above:
Furthermore, the BBC production does an excellent job of explaining how the myth of the Spanish Inquisition arose in the first place. Anti-Spanish Protestants, mostly Lutherans, were master propagandists, printed and distributed copies of fabricated first-person accounts of Spanish Inquisition trials, and thus effectively whipped up sentiment against the Spanish crown. These propaganda pieces were the primary evidence that historians later used in constucting their accounts of the Inquisition (and most of those historians were Protestant).This is documented.