Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
the intimidation of witnesses in an effort to suppress their testimony. Further, the conclusion of the District of Columbia Circuit, in Moóre, that the collection of information for use in a prosecution is necessarily investigative rather than advocatory conduct demonstrates a much narrower conception of the advocatory role than is justified by Imbler, in which the Court explicitly recognized that "[pjreparation, both for the initiation of the criminal process and for a trial, may require the obtaining, reviewing, and evaluating of evidence.” Imbler, 424 U.S. at 431 n. 33, 96 S.Ct. 984 (emphasis added). 7 .Rowell’s trial testimony included an in-chambers conference that involved the state court, counsel for the parties, and Rowell. The conference appeared to relate 1 (9th Cir.2001) . 11 . See Henzel v. Gerstein, 608 F.2d 654,
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that advising police officers as to existence of probable cause in particular case was not protected by absolute immunity
B. holding fabrication not protected because no probable cause
C. holding that the existence of probable cause determines whether fabrication is investigatory or advocatory
D. holding that under fourth amendment standards for determining probable cause for arrest and probable cause for search and seizure are same
E. holding that in a  1983 action issue of probable cause is for the jury
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.