With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". than it would be without the evidence.” Commonwealth v. Vallejo, 532 Pa. 558, 616 A.2d 974, 976 (1992). Here, the trial court refused to permit Elliott to introduce evidence that Nardone died in 1994 after assaulting his girlfriend, finding that such evidence had no bearing on whether Elliott committed the victim’s murder in 1992. N.T., Oct. 24, 1994, at 168-71. Elliott has failed to demonstrate that the trial court abused its discretion. The fact that Nar-done may have physically assaulted a woman in 1994, causing her to inflict injury upon Nardone, does not make it more probable than not that Nardone, and not Elliott, murdered the victim in 1992. Elliott’s contrary theory constitutes nothing more than rank speculation. See Commonwealth v. Williams, 554 Pa. 1, 720 A.2d 679, 686 (1998) (<HOLDING>); Commonwealth v. Cook, 544 Pa. 361, 676 A.2d

A: holding inter alia that common law claims were preempted
B: holding that the trial court properly excluded evidence that other persons had a motive to kill the victims because inter alia such evidence was speculative
C: holding that the trial court properly excluded evidence relating to a purported additional suspect where the evidence was speculative and had little or no probative value
D: holding other crimes evidence admissible to show motive where motive was put in issue by defense at trial
B.