Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
evidence that the statements in question were made under oath. Although Wyche contends, without supporting authority, that the “under oath” requirement cannot be established by circumstantial evidence, we disagree. First, as Wyche concedes, the other elements of the crime of perjury may be proved using circumstantial evidence. See Appellant’s Br. at 14. Second, as indicated by our standard of review, the elements of a crime ordinarily can be proved by direct or circumstantial evidence. See Voss, 82 F.3d at 1524-25. Case law on the issue establishes that “perjury cases, like all criminal cases, are susceptible to proof by circumstantial evidence.” United States v. Chapin, 515 F.2d 1274, 1280 (D.C.Cir.1975); see also United States v. Serafini, 233 F.3d 758, 770 (3d Cir.2000) . Third, the perjury statute itself supports
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding intent to intimidate or threaten may be proved by circumstantial evidence such as ones conduct or statements
B. holding that motive is circumstantial evidence of intent
C. holding that conviction can be supported solely by circumstantial evidence
D. holding that intent and knowledge can be proved by circumstantial evidence
E. recognizing that identity of a substance as cocaine may be proved by circumstantial evidence
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.