With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". relevant at all. Petitioner did not demonstrate any connection or nexus between Donorvitch and the subject burglary or grand theft. Nor did he specify the way in which Donorvitch more closely resembled the robber’s description. Petitioner had met Donorvitch in the Pompano Jail, but we have no record indication of whether Donorvitch was in fact in jail at the time of the crime’s commission. We cannot be sure that Donorvitch actually lived in the neighborhood of the crime scene or had looks similar to the description of the robber given to the police, for the sole source of this information was the Petitioner himself and there was no independently reliable corroboration. See Ferreira v. Fair, 732 F.2d 245, 248 (1st Cir.), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 1017, 105 S.Ct. 430, 83 L.Ed.2d 356 (1984) (<HOLDING>)-, cf. Chambers v. Mississippi, 410 U.S. 284,

A: holding there to be no due process violation where excluded testimony bore none of the indicia of substantial trustworthiness that were crucial in chambers
B: holding that in similar factual situation no due process violation occurred
C: holding hearing in chambers was not per se a violation of due process
D: holding that due process guarantees were not violated where a defendant was excluded from a witness competency hearing and noting that the hearing did not concern the witnesses substantive testimony
A.