With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". denied ever being in the victims’ residence — a statement that was clearly inconsistent with the considerable DNA evidence presented at trial which placed him inside the trailer; testimony from Reynolds’ neighbor who saw him washing clothes at 5:30 a.m. on the morning the bodies were discovered; clothes found hanging on Reynolds’ clothesline the morning the bodies were discovered that appeared to have been strongly bleached; and the testimony of two prisoners who had previously been incarcerated with Reynolds that Reynolds admitted to them that he had in fact committed the crimes. We have previously held that evidence similar to that offered in the instant matter refuted the assertion that the case was entirely circumstantial. See Meyers v. State, 704 So.2d 1368, 1370 (Fla.1997) (<HOLDING>); Orne v. State, 677 So.2d 258, 261-62 (Fla.

A: holding that admission of hearsay was harmless where strong circumstantial evidence established the same facts
B: holding that the case could not be deemed wholly circumstantial where testimony at trial established that the defendant confessed to a former cellmate
C: holding that lack of consent may be established by adequate circumstantial evidence
D: holding reversal unwarranted in circumstantial evidence case absent substantial trial error
B.