Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
reasoning is nonetheless apropos in cases of addiction. Where the State seeks to introduce drug addiction without first establishing a defendant’s identity as the culprit, his drug addiction has no relevance or probative value as to the motive of an otherwise unknown culprit. In other words, without a sufficient identification of the defendant as the intruder, the necessary chain of reasoning breaks and we need not reach the relationship between drug addiction and motive. In the absence of some identification of the defendant as the intruder, his heroin addiction, though introduced to show motive, would necessarily fill in the missing logical gaps that Rule 404(b) requires a prosecutor to fill. See Gould v. State, 579 P.2d 535, 539 (Alaska 1978) (introduction of heroin (Kan. 2008) ; Adkins v. Com., 96 S.W.3d 779, 783-85, 793
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding evidence of defendants prior drug use and heroin addiction admissible to establish defendants motive to commit robbery
B. holding that the defendants prior distribution of crack was admissible to prove that he had intent and knowledge regarding crack found in a gym bag
C. holding crack cocaine addiction admissible to prove motive to kill and rob when accomplice identified defendant and defendants cell mates testified she had admitted her actions
D. holding evidence of defendants gambling losses and extramarital affair admissible to show motive to kill when he admitted to police that he drugged and robbed murder victims but claimed he did not kill them
E. holding rap recordings about dealing cocaine were relevant to show knowledge and motive when the defendant testified he had never purchased or sold cocaine
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.