With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". the girls’ pornography- Even had Ellis requested the trial court to revisit its rule of completeness determination regarding the pornography discussion, Saxton’s testimony about what V.W. reported to her did not involve a statement by Ellis, and thus did not implicate the rule of completeness. See William A. Schroeder, 22 Missouri Practice, Missouri Evidence, section 106:1 (4th ed. 2012) (noting that the rule of completeness is implicated “when one party introduces evidence of a part of a writing, conversation, statement, or deposition, an opponent has a right to introduce evidence of, or inquire into, other relevant parts of that writing, conversation, statement, recorded statement, or deposition”) (emphasis added); see also State v. Yole, 136 S.W.3d 175, 179 (Mo. App. W.D. 2004) (<HOLDING>) (citing State v. Chambers, 891 S.W.2d 93, 103

A: holding that later declarations during defendants confession leading officers to evidence of the crime constituted part of one continuous confession that began at the police station
B: holding that rule of completeness did not apply where statements made at the scene and the statement made at the police station were  distinct and not part of one confession
C: holding that statement to police made thirtysix hours after a different statement to police was not part of one confession and not admissible under the rule of completeness
D: holding that accusers 911 call initial statement to police upon their arrival at the crime scene and statements made to police a short time later were testimonial
B.