Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
indicated that the offense was sexually motivated and that the person who committed the offense did so for sexual gratification. Simmons argues that the trial court erred in admitting Neer’s testimony into evidence because, he says, the evidence was based on scientific analysis and did not meet the Frye standard. Initially, we find it imperative to note that the evidence offered through Neer’s testimony was not “profile” testimony. “Profile” evidence attempts to link the general characteristics of serial murderers to specific characteristics of the defendant. Such evidence is of little probative value and extremely prejudicial to the defendant since he is, in a sense, being accused by a witness who was not present at any of the crimes. See Pennell v. State, 602 A.2d 48, 55 (Del.1991) . Neer’s testimony did not accuse Simmons of
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that fbi agent was properly allowed to testify as expert on serial murders
B. holding that testimony of fbi agent regarding bank tellers out of court identification was properly admitted under 801d1c
C. holding that the trial court improperly allowed a hydrologist to testify regarding safe warehousing practices where he lacked the education employment or other practical experiences to testify as an expert
D. holding that an expert is not competent to testify as to statutory interpretation
E. holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in allowing plaintiffs expert witness to testify when it also allowed defendants expert witness who disputed the methodology used by plaintiffs expert to testify
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.