Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
trial court allowed Tucker to read the victim’s statement into the record and certified Tucker as “an expert in Sexual Assault Nurse Examiner.” {54} We hold that the victim’s statement to the SANE practitioner is testimonial because it falls into the third category of evidence labeled testimonial by Crawford, “statements that were made under circumstances which would lead an objective witness reasonably to believe that the statement would be available for use at a later trial.” 541 U.S. at 52,124 S.Ct. 1354 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). {55} We first note that the fact that the SANE practitioner is not a government official does not preclude statements given to her from being testimonial. See, e.g., State v. Mack, 337 Or. 586, 101 P.3d 349, 352 (Or.2004) (en bane) . However, many cases involving statements
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that the trial court did not err in precluding crossexamination of police officer as to statements made during an internal police investigation because the purpose for which such testimony was sought was pure speculation which has no support in the record
B. holding victims statement testimonial where it was elicited in response to structured police questioning pursuant to a police investigation
C. holding the confrontation clause applies only to testimonial statements
D. holding that accusers 911 call initial statement to police upon their arrival at the crime scene and statements made to police a short time later were testimonial
E. holding statements made to a social worker to be testimonial because she was acting as a proxy for the police
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.