Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
his version of the incident. McCollough argues that removal of “allegedly” from his statement “conveyed a completely different meaning to the average person” in that the revised statement read as an admission by him that he hit a player with a ball. McCollough’s Brief in Response to Cross-Appeal at 10. [35] The parties’ arguments demonstrate quite clearly that there is a genuine issue of material fact as to the defamatory imputation of the altered statement that was published. The true implication of the statement necessarily requires consideration of extrinsic evidence by the trier of fact. [36] The Defendants also argue that the statement cannot be defamatory because it accurately states what occurred. See Gatto v. St. Richard School, Inc., 114, N.E.2d 914, 924 (Ind.Ct.App.2002) . They point to affidavits of witnesses who
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that truth is a complete defense to an action for libel
B. holding that probable cause is a complete defense to an action for false arrest
C. recognizing a criminal defendants right to present a complete defense
D. holding that truth is a complete defense to defamation
E. holding that insanity is a complete defense to the criminal charge
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.