To be clear; has any RS established the relevance of her view (other than it being a juicy soundbite to add to the case reports)? If that5 exists then cool, we can rework the section to be decent. Otherwise I think it falls under editorial discretion on who to quote - and in this case it should be cut. The idea to gently establish is that some people think it unlikely he has done this act - I could be convinced a sentence about Conti might work, if her relevance could be more solidly identified - not to create a quote farm of largely irrelevant specific opinions (always bad practice of the highest order). Errant (chat!)