Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
they are guaranteed the rights encompassed in the warnings. As far as we can tell, Davis had never been advised of his Miranda rights with respect to this case before talking to Judd. Under these circumstances, we are compelled to conclude that Davis’s untaped confession to Judd should have been suppressed. Notwithstanding, the erroneous admission of this confession was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. Shortly after confessing in his holding cell, Davis gave a taped statement in which he voluntarily gave the same information contained in his prior statement to Judd. This statement was clearly admissible because Davis was fully informed of (and waived) his Miranda rights before the start of the taping session. See Oregon v. Elstad, 470 U.S. 298, 105 S.Ct. 1285, 84 L.Ed.2d 222 (1985) . As to the second taped confession, given on
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that although defendants voluntarily given initial statement was inadmissible because of miranda violation subsequent statement made after careful miranda warnings were given and waiver was obtained was admissible
B. holding that where a suspect was given miranda warnings and then immediately spoke without police prompting that statement was voluntary and therefore admissible
C. holding inadmissible a statement made after incomplete miranda advisement but holding a subsequent statement admissible because the court found it was given after a full advisement
D. holding that a confession obtained in violation of miranda was admissible for impeachment
E. holding that miranda warnings do not have to be given in the exact form stated in the miranda opinion as long as an effective equivalent is given
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.