Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
weight of the eyewitness statements, with respect to FIRs 89, 34 and 100, Barapind offered his own compelling witness statements, in which all of the eyewitnesses upon which India relies either recant their earlier identification, or deny having made an identification in the first place. There is some confusion, however, as to whether this type of evidence is admissible in this context. The general rule is that evidence that “explains away or completely obliterates” probable cause is admissible, while evidence that “merely controverts the existence of probable cause” is not. Mainero v. Gregg, 164 F.3d 1199, 1207 n. 7 (9th Cir.1999). Courts, however, have struggled with the admissibility of recantation evidence under this rule. See, e.g., In re Extradition of Singh, 170 F.Supp.2d at 994 ; compare Eain v. Wilkes, 641 F.2d 504, 511-512
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that even if the standard for waiver is clear the standard was not met
B. holding that the protect act amendments to the standard of review apply retroactively
C. recognizing that the standard is extremely difficult to apply
D. recognizing that the federal pleading standard is a less stringent standard than the delaware pleading standard
E. holding that an oral warning may be sufficient where the harassing conduct is not extremely serious
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.