Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
491, 495 (Ind.1990), reh’g denied. Newspaper articles are, by their very nature, hearsay and for that reason are seldom proper evidence to prove any fact except the bare fact of their publication. Feliciano v. State, 467 N.E.2d 748, 749 (Ind. 1984). Therefore, the trial court erred when it admitted the newspaper article into evidence. However, we hold that the error was harmless. Here, Moore’s own testimony indicated that he had been employed within the last two years. Further, during his testimony, Moore invoked his Fifth Amendment right not to answer additional questions. From Moore’s refusal to testify, the court could properly have drawn an adverse inference regarding his financial ability to comply with the support order. See Gash v. Kohm, 476 N.E.2d 910, 913 (Ind.Ct.App.1985) , reh’g denied, trans. denied. Due to the
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that the privilege against selfincrimination does not prohibit the trier of fact in a civil case from drawing adverse inferences from a witness refusal to testify
B. holding that the fifth amendment does not forbid adverse inferences against parties to civil actions when they refuse to testify in response to probative evidence offered against them
C. holding that although witness may invoke right against selfincrimination in civil proceeding district court may make negative inferences from invocation of right
D. recognizing commonlaw privilege against selfincrimination
E. holding that the drug tax violated the privilege against selfincrimination
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.