Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
that was neither deep enough or long enough to require stitches, and a scraped elbow did not require prompt medical attention under the Eighth Amendment. See Davis v. Jones, 936 F.2d 971, 972-73 (7th Cir.1991). In sum, Pinkston’s split lip and swollen cheek do not qualify as injuries that are “so obvious that even a lay person would easily recognize the necessity for a doctor’s attention.” Wynn, 251 F.3d at 593. Furthermore, even if we were to assume, for purposes of argument only, that Pinkston has indeed somehow established an objectively serious medical need, he has certainly failed to demonstrate that Madry and Grisselle were deliberately indifferent to that hypothetical need. See Board, 394 F.3d at 478; see also Hughes v. United Van Lines, Inc., 829 F.2d 1407, 1420 (7th Cir.1987) ; United States v. Woods, 233 F.3d 482, 484
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that when findings are based on determinations regarding the credibility of witnesses rule 52 demands even greater deference to the trial courts findings for only the trial judge is in a position to be aware of the variations in demeanor including but not limited to the actions mannerisms and facial expressions that bear so heavily on the listeners understanding of and belief in what is said
B. holding the findings of fact required to support an alimony award are sufficient if findings of fact have been made on the ultimate facts at issue in the case and the findings of fact show the trial court properly applied the law in the case
C. holding that a courts determination to discount the testimony of the defendants expert witnesses was a proper exercise of his discretion in weighing the demeanor credibility and persuasiveness of the evidence when ruling on a motion for a new trial
D. holding that a reviewing court has the power to reject the findings and conclusions of the trial court where the findings are not supported by the evidence
E. holding total deference is given to the trial courts determination of historical facts supported by the record especially when the trial courts findings turn on evaluating a witnesss credibility and demeanor
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.