Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
is a reasonable deduction from facts in evidence; it was not “speculation.” Detective Reynolds saw the ligatures tied to Jeff Wright’s wrists and leg, at the death scene, at the morgue, and in photographs. Although Detective Reynolds admittedly did not know where on the headboard of the bed the ligatures were tied, it was reasonable for him to infer that appellant secured the ligatures to the bed in some fashion. See Valdez, 776 S.W.2d at 169. Moreover, the precise location where the ligatures were tied is an insignificant fact; the more important question is when appellant tied Jeff Wright’s arms and legs. As we have noted, it is not necessary that the demonstration be identical to the event in every respect. See id. at 168; Cantu, 738 S.W.2d at 266; see also Key, 192 S.W.2d at 566 . Appellant has not cited any cases, and we
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that defendants role as sole caretaker did not render circumstances extraordinary
B. holding that the principal must have control and supervision over the details of the agents work
C. holding that a fivemonth delay did not render information stale
D. holding minor differences in details of demonstration and actual event did not render reenactment substantially dissimilar
E. holding that apprendi did not render  841 unconstitutional
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.