Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
credibility about a battered woman, we find the court’s evidential ruling unduly restrictive. 9 We note that several jurisdictions have found battered woman syndrome evidence to be admissible for certain purposes in respect of a claim of duress. See, e.g., United States v. Simpson, 979 F.2d 1282, 1287-88 (8th Cir.1992), cert. denied, 507 U.S. 943, 113 S.Ct. 1345, 122 L.Ed.2d 727 (1993); United States v. Marenghi, 893 F.Supp. 85, 92-96 (D.Me.1995), aff'd, 109 F,3d 28 (1st Cir.1997); United States v. Brown, 891 F.Supp. 1501, 1508 (D.Kan.1995); Romero, supra, 13 Cal.Rptr.2d at 338-39, rev’d on other grounds, 8 Cal.4th 728, 35 Cal.Rptr.2d 270, 883 P.2d 388 (1994); State v. Williams, 132 Wash.2d 248, 937 P.2d 1052, 1058 (1997). See also Dunn v. Roberts, 963 F.2d 308, 313-14 (10th Cir.1992) ; United States v. Johnson, 956 F.2d 894, 898
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that a lawyer is a necessary witness where the lawyers testimony is relevant to disputed material questions of fact and where there is no other evidence available to prove those facts
B. holding that the relevant intent is not the intent to return ultimately but the intent to return to the united states within a relatively short period
C. holding that the title of legislation is relevant to legislative intent
D. holding that the rule 404b evidence admitted to prove intent was clearly relevant because intent was at issue in the trial
E. holding battered woman syndrome evidence relevant when defendants intent is disputed
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.