Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
“had been intellectually ‘slow’ all his life,” had difficulty understanding complex matters, and was on the “low range of the intelligent quotient scale,” as well as psychiatric testimony that he was competent to stand trial. This court determined that the waiver was valid. Id. at 177-78. We said: Merely because an accused exhibits equivocal signs of borderline mental deficiency, or may even be suffering from a mental illness at the precise time of the waiver, those facts alone may not automatically mandate a finding of incompetence to waive. Id at 178. Under Wold therefore, evidence of Camacho’s borderline mental deficiency alone does not automatically mandate a finding of incompetence to waive. Cf. Colorado v. Connelly, 479 U.S. 157, 164, 107 S.Ct. 515, 520, 93 L.Ed.2d 473 (1986) . The Iowa Supreme Court has held that mental
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. recognizing that this courts construction of a statute becomes as much apart of the statute as the words of the statute itself and that change is a matter that addresses itself to the general assembly not this court
B. holding failure to retract an allegedly defamatory statement is not by itself adequate evidence of malice for constitutional purposes
C. holding that mental condition by itself and apart from its relation to official coercion should not dispose of inquiring into constitutional voluntariness
D. holding that the mothers mental condition was implicated in a dependency proceeding without further analysis
E. holding that denial of a grievance by itself without any connection to the violation of constitutional rights alleged by plaintiff does not establish personal participation under  1983
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.