Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
when I get out is find you. I know where you live, or, I see you all the time in town. You’re mine.” Later, Wise was heard to say, “I’m going to stab that fucking cop.” The trial judge found that Wise’s testimony was “not credible” and that this evidence proved Wise meant he “was going to have [the officer] killed.” The First Amendment is not implicated in this case because Wise made a threat of bodily harm within the meaning of the statute. This was not a situation involving hyperbole analogous to Watts and the context does not otherwise indicate Wise was making a political statement. The trial judge found the evidence, in context, proved Wise intended to intimidate the officer by threatening physical harm. See Selph v. Commonwealth, 48 Va.App. 426, 433-35, 632 S.E.2d 24, 27-28 (2006) . See also Crawley v. Commonwealth, 29 Va.App.
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that intent and knowledge can be proved by circumstantial evidence
B. holding that such circumstantial evidence may be used to prove discrimination
C. holding intent to intimidate or threaten may be proved by circumstantial evidence such as ones conduct or statements
D. recognizing that identity of a substance as cocaine may be proved by circumstantial evidence
E. holding that motive is circumstantial evidence of intent
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.