Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
"above and beyond what is required by Tennessee law.” Turner, 2009 WL 426260, at *8. This statement of the Court of Criminal Appeals is only accurate in the post-waiver context. 11 . The court went on to state that "[a]ssum-ing arguendo that [Tidwell]'s request in the case sub judice was equivocal, the interrogation following the equivocal request should have been strictly limited to a clarification of whether the defendant was in fact invoking his right to have counsel present during interrogation.” Id. at 387. This was the standard for all custodial interrogations in Tennessee prior to Davis and Saylor. It remains the standard for interactions between police and the accused prior to waiver of the Miranda rights. 12 . See, e.g., Lord v. Duckworth, 29 F.3d 1216, 1220-21 (7th Cir. 1994) ; Braboy v. State, 130 Md.App. 220, 745 A.2d
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that appellants statement i think i need a lawyer     is just as ambiguous as the statement made by the defendant in davis
B. holding that the right to have counsel present means the right to have counsel physically present during the interrogation not merely the right to consult an attorney by telephone
C. holding that defendants response i cant  i cant afford it when informed that an attorney would be provided for him if he could not afford one did not without further explanation amount to a clear unambiguous or unequivocal invocation of the right to counsel
D. holding in light of davis that defendants statement i cant afford a lawyer but is there anyway i can get one lacked the clear implication of a present desire to consult with counsel and was ambiguous at best
E. holding that defendants response after being told that the state would provide him an attorney if he wanted one of yeah im  im ah need that cause i cant afford none did not reflect a present desire for counsel at all much less an unequivocal one
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.