Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
with our Davis approach of analyzing the testimonial nature of a statement independently of its admissibility under the rules of evidence. See Moore v. State, 169 S.W.3d 467, 473 (Tex.App.-Texarkana July 26, 2005, no pet. h.). 14 . See Spencer v. State, 162 S.W.3d 877, 883 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 2005, no pet.) (witness initiated contact); Wilson v. State, 151 S.W.3d 694, 697-98 (Tex.App.-Fort Worth 2004, pet. filed) (finding that admission of non-testifying witness’s self-initiated statements to police officers in response to unstructured questions during the investigation of a crime did not violate Crawford)-, Davis v. State, No. 2-03-305-CR, 2005 WL 183141, at *2, 2005 Tex.App. LEXIS 712, at *4 (Tex.App.-Fort Worth Jan.27, 2005, no pet. h.) (not designated for publication) ; see also State v. Forrest, 164 N.C.App. 272,
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. recognizing that not all statements obtained by the police after a person has been taken into custody are to be considered the product of interrogation
B. holding statements by coconspirator nontestimonial and thus admissible
C. holding that certified records of maintenance are nontestimonial and are not prepared for any particular defendant
D. holding that miranda does not apply to statements of the defendant which are voluntary and unsolicited and not the product of custodial interrogation
E. holding that voluntary statements to police initiated by witness are not interrogation and therefore are nontestimonial
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.