With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". the interrogations lasted more than a few hours. Appellant was offered food by the police and told he was free to leave the station at any time on Friday. Also, the police made sure that Appellant was well rested and fresh before they interrogated him on Saturday. In addition, when the police told Appellant that the hair found in Teresa’s hand matched Appellant’s hair, they were communicating the information that they received from SLED. Even if the information were untrue, it is not, alone, enough to render the confession involuntary. See Von Dohlen, 471 S.E.2d at 695; State v. Rabon, 275 S.C. 459, 272 S.E.2d 634 (1980)(“A misrepresentation, while relevant, may be insufficient to render inadmissible an otherwise valid confession”); State v. Register, 323 S.C. 471, 476 S.E.2d 153 (1996)(<HOLDING>). Since the initial confession was voluntary,

A: holding defendants confession was voluntary and admissible when police misrepresented to defendant that he had been seen with the victim the night she was murdered that his tires and shoe matched impressions found at the murder scene and that the police had dna evidence establishing defendants guilt
B: holding that the state court ruling was objectively unreasonable where prosecution failed to present sufficient evidence that the petitioner murdered a known drug dealer although the state established that the petitioner planned to rob drug dealers for drugs or money the victim was a known drug dealer who kept drugs in his freezer and that freezer was open and empty after the homicide the petitioner and the victim had engaged in drug transactions in the past the petitioner had a motive because he had seen the victim make a pass at the petitioners girlfriend and the petitioner had possessed and once purchased the murder weapon and a similar gun was seen in his home two weeks before the murder evidence placing the petitioner at the scene was conspicuously absent leaving only a reasonable speculation that the petitioner was present
C: holding that a police investigators lay opinion that the sole of the defendants athletic shoe matched a shoe print found on the center of the victims bedroom floor was permissible where the investigator had some experience in that area and was clearly testifying that the patterns matched which was not inconsistent with a crime lab report
D: holding a defendant was entitled to a directed verdict when none of the evidence presented by the state placed the defendant at the crime scene and the jury was left to speculate as to the defendants guilt
A.