Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
and asked for a lawyer based on “her practice” and the notations on the jacket. (Tr. at 141.) This supposition, which does not account for the possibility of clerical mistakes in a busy prosecutor’s office, is in contrast to the specific, uniform recollections of Officers Argila, McCarthy and Fogarty, who each testified in detail about Garcia’s receipt and subsequent waiver of his Miranda rights, and the drafting and ratification of his statement. (Tr. at 33-39, 98-101, 128-29.) As this Court has no reason to doubt the credibility of the three officers in this case, their specific recollections trump ADA Coyne’s bare assumption that the criminal file jacket accurately represents her conversation with Officer Fogarty. See United States v. Martinez, 634 F.Supp. 1144, 1147 (S.D.N.Y.1986); see also United States v. Patterson, No. 02
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that although defendants voluntarily given initial statement was inadmissible because of miranda violation subsequent statement made after careful miranda warnings were given and waiver was obtained was admissible
B. recognizing a public safety exception to the requirement that miranda warnings be given in order to use a suspects statement as evidence against him at trial
C. holding that in the absence of police coercion a subsequent administration of miranda warnings to a suspect who has given a voluntary but unwarned statement ordinarily should suffice to remove the conditions that precluded admission of the earlier statement
D. holding that in absence of a jurat the fact that the statement was sworn to may be shown by other evidence
E. holding that police officers sworn affidavit that miranda warnings were given was held sufficient to deny suppression of defendants postarrest statement in the absence of properlysupported statement by defendant to the contrary
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.