Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
inconsistent out-of-court statements of a state witness which had implicated a defendant in the murder of a cashier at a gas station. The witness in Moffett, like the witnesses in the instant case, admitted making the prior statement but insisted that the contents were untrue. Moffett, 456 So.2d at 717. The Court in Moffett explained that where a nonparty witness admitted making the prior out-of-court statements, the statements where reduced to written form, should never be introduced into evidence. Id. at 719. The basis for not allowing such prior inconsistent written statements into evidence is that no necessity for further proof exists with respect to such statements once an admission of the prior inconsistency has been made. Id.; see Davis v. State, 431 So.2d 468, 473 (Miss.1983) ; Sims v. State, 313 So.2d 388, 391 (Miss.1975)
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. recognizing that evidence of extra judicial statements by nonparty witness was admissable only to impeach
B. holding that counsels failure to impeach a witness by showing bias was ineffective assistance
C. holding in rule 3850 proceeding that trial counsel s failure to impeach witness with statements he made on night of murder was not reasonable under the circumstances
D. holding that counsel was ineffective for inter alia failing to impeach a witness with prior inconsistent statements
E. holding that the state could not impeach an expert witness with evidence concerning past issues with the payment of taxes
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.