Continuation - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[katy_did]

I just had a quick look at Amanda's appeal, and I think this is the bit where they talk about Quintavalle's question to Chiriboga about whether she'd seen Amanda (which Massei uses to prove Quintavalle really did see her). From page 160:

As is apparent from a reading of Chiriboga's testimony, the question Quintavalle posed to his assistant occurred around the time of a television interview which he gave after the witness statements of October 2008. In the transcript of Chiriboga's examination it reads:

<<PRESIDENT - And when did he recount this to you? WITNESS - I don't remember the exact date, but it was the day they went to interview them>> (transcript of hearing 26 June 2009, page 72).

It is therefore incomprehensible that Quintavalle's question to his assistant following the witness statements to the Public Prosecutor, almost a year after the episode itself and on the occasion of a television interview, could constitute certain and credible verification of the witness's story.

Come emerge, infatti, dalla lettura della deposizione della Chiriboga, la domanda del Quintavalle alla propria collaboratrice venne posta in occasione di una intervista televisiva da costui rilasciata dopo le sommarie informazioni dell’ottobre 2008. Si legge nelle trascrizioni dell’esame della Chiriboga:

<<PRESIDENTE – E questo racconto quand’è che ve l’ha fatto? TESTE – La data precisa non mi ricordo, ma quel giorno che sono andati a intervistarli>> (trascrizioni udienza 26 giugno 2009, pag. 72).

Non risulta comprensibile, dunque, come la domanda del Quintavalle alla propria commessa, dopo le sommarie informazioni al pubblico Ministero, a quasi un anno dall’episodio raccontato, in occasione di un’intervista televisiva, possa costituire un riscontro di certezza e credibilità al racconto del testimone.

 

[katy_did]

I've wondered before about this question of exactly when Quintavalle asked Chiriboga if she'd seen Amanda... I think the most revealing thing isn't even what the defence said about it, but the fact Massei is so vague - no reference to when it actually happened, just that it did. I'm pretty sure that if it had happened before Knox and Sollecito were arrested, Massei would've said that because it would make his argument a lot stronger.

If the defence are right that it didn't happen till a year later - well, it's ridiculous that Massei uses that as an argument to support Quintavalle's reliability. In fact if it happened any time after the arrests it shouldn't be used to support Quintavalle's reliability. Why assume that the question meant he definitely saw her anyway? It could just as easily show that he wasn't sure whether he saw her, and was hoping Chiriboga could confirm his story.

Massei must've been pretty short on facts supporting Quintavalle's reliability as a witness if he had to include that, LOL.

 

[Kestrel]

Perhaps you could expand further on these points. Don't bother with the alibi one though, since that's circular reasoning. But it would be interesting to read more about how the coroner's report clearly indicates a time of death later than 9.30pm. And tell us more about the different witnesses who heard a scream. Tell us how these witnesses are flatly contradicted by the people whose car broke down outside the girls' house, and who are collectively certain that there was no audible activity inside the house between 10.30 and 11.15, and that neither did anyone enter or leave the house during that time. Bear in mind that these people were sitting in their car, right outside the girls' house, blocking the only entrance to the house, with a direct view of the front door and Knox's bedroom window, with nothing to do but wait for a breakdown truck to arrive.

Are we to believe that Knox, Sollecito and Guede entered the house before 10.30, then sat in dark and silence for 45 minutes until the breakdown people left, before murdering Meredith in the ensuing 5 minutes? Or are we instead to believe that Knox, Guede and Sollecito waited outside the house until the breakdown people had left, then rushed in and murdered Meredith within 5 minutes?

Or isn't it possible that Meredith was already lying dead long before the breakdown car first appeared in the driveway at 10.30, and that her killer was also long gone from the house?

The car broke down leaving the parking garage across the street, not in the cottage driveway. But your point about having a clear view of the house is still valid.

As for the time of death, Meredith's cell phone records give us another clue. At 9:58 PM there was an attempt to connect with her voice mail. At 10:00 PM, a failed attempt to connect with Abby Bank in the UK. Assuming that Meredith knew how to use her own phone, these calls indicate that it was in the hands of someone else at 10 PM. At 10:13 the phone received a MMS message and connected via a different cell tower that covers an area between the cottage and the garden where Meredith's phones were found the next day.

At trial, the medical examiner put the time of death at 11:00 PM plus or minus a half hour, apparently based on measuring the temperature of the body. But considering the delay in making that measurement, the precision of the estimate is greatly overstated.

 

[LondonJohn]

What the heck does this have to do with anything? And btw John, why do you keep posting about posts on other forums?

Well, you might want to ask the people who run - and post on - TJMK or PMF what the heck this has to do with anything. I'm as bemused as you as to why the possible drink-drive behaviour (as yet without any charges) of a woman in Seattle who has not been engaged by anyone involved in the Kercher case should be of such immense interest to them. The nasty zeal with which they have set about this woman (including "humorous" sarcastic pastiches of her situation) were worth commenting upon, in my opinion.

And, Alt+F4, I post about posts on other forums because a) other forums bring up topics that bear analysis and scrutiny, and b) I am prevented from analysing or scrutinising these topics on those forums. Maybe you should instead ask the people who run those forums what their "admission policy" really is - because it seems to most objective observers that any deviation from a firm belief in Knox/Sollecito's convictions will - sooner rather than later - result in one being "asked to leave", usually coupled with "thanks for stopping by".

 

[Dan O.]

different witnesses that heard a scream

That isn't what I'd call hard evidence: they could be mistaken or lying, but it's a bit harder for Meredith Kercher's digestive system to lie or make a mistake.

Sherlock is trying to argue the same point both ways. Look what he said earlier in this thread:

I fully agree - the murder had to happen much earlier, 9:30 - 10:45

The two ladies that heard the scream could be wrong about the time, could have been a tire screaching, could have been just some kids. I don't have a lot of faith in the scream meaning much.

 

[LondonJohn]

I must disagree. Neither Dempsey or Bremner are "peripherally connected to the Kercher murder case". Both have written about the case about the case, nothing more. Now I'm sure you're going to say, well then why has Peter Quennel disparaged them on his website? The answer is that people on the Internet are mean, especially when they have an agenda. It's that simple.

It's one thing to be mean (and there are certainly some internet presences connected with this case who are world-class in this area). But it's the whole area of fantasising about mud wrestling between two middle-aged women, then remarking on the "kinkiness" of it, which particularly disturbs me.

And, by the way, both Bremner and Dempsey are merely peripherally connected to the Kercher case. The only people who are directly connected to the case are the victim's close family, the currently-convicted parties and their close families, the lawyers who have worked on the case, the police and prosecutors involved in the case, and the various members of the Italian judiciary directly involved in the case. That's all. None of the journalists, writers, bloggers, TV show presenters et al (including, I suspect, all those of us who post on these sites) are any more than sideshow acts.

 

[LondonJohn]

I've wondered before about this question of exactly when Quintavalle asked Chiriboga if she'd seen Amanda... I think the most revealing thing isn't even what the defence said about it, but the fact Massei is so vague - no reference to when it actually happened, just that it did. I'm pretty sure that if it had happened before Knox and Sollecito were arrested, Massei would've said that because it would make his argument a lot stronger.

If the defence are right that it didn't happen till a year later - well, it's ridiculous that Massei uses that as an argument to support Quintavalle's reliability. In fact if it happened any time after the arrests it shouldn't be used to support Quintavalle's reliability. Why assume that the question meant he definitely saw her anyway? It could just as easily show that he wasn't sure whether he saw her, and was hoping Chiriboga could confirm his story.

Massei must've been pretty short on facts supporting Quintavalle's reliability as a witness if he had to include that, LOL.

Nice work uncovering the relevant parts of the appeal. So, unless the appeal is dealing in flat-out lies (which I'd gauge as.....unlikely), it seems pretty clear that Quintavalle didn't ask Chiriboga if she'd seen Knox in the shop at around 8am on 2nd November until about a year after the event.

If this is true, then I suggest that it not only holes Quintavalle's credibility below the waterline (especially when taken in conjunction with his heavily-disputed testimony that he was not asked about Knox - or shown her photo - during the police visit to his shop on 17th November), but that it also seriously dents Massei's credibility - on account of his less-than-balanced interpretation of the evidence in this instance.

 

[HumanityBlues]

_____________________

Fair enough Charlie.

Anne Bremner has been a spokesperson for Friends Of Amanda. Those interested in Anne's arrest, and her efforts to block release of embarrassing evidence, can read HERE Now with 15 pages of added comments.

And Anne's eulogy for Joan Stapleton can be read HERE

///

Is there anything in that article about Seattle's pepper spray law?

 

[LondonJohn]

This is where I disagree. If Amanda and Raffaele have their verdicts overturned on appeal I doubt the reason will be because of a "big, fat, painfully obvious frame-up, designed to protect the reputations of officials who very publicly announced a dramatic theory that is both wrong and stupid."

It hasn't been shown that there should be distrust of the justice system in Italy or the officials who investigated, tried and judged the case. There have been many allegations. Do even the appeal documents of Amanda and Raffaele point to evidence of intentional wrong-doing by officials?

I agree. I don't think there was anything like what might be classically termed a "frame-up". I think that the police/prosecutors might have formed a theory - in good faith - very early on about what happened, but that they then might have started interpreting the evidence to fit the theory. This is also known as "tunnel vision", and is a known problem which has afflicted many police investigations - especially high-profile ones - all over the world.

Just one small indication (out of many) of how it might have happened here is around the time of death. The police/prosecutors know that Sollecito and Knox had pretty good alibis up to around 9.15pm at least. But the police/prosecutors had already decided that Knox/Sollecito were involved in the murder, and they were also convinced that there was a fairly long preamble to the murder. So the time of death had to be at least 10.15pm. But then we have the strange terminated calls from Meredith's phone at 10.00-10.18pm, and we also have the broken down car outside the girls' house at 10.30pm - whose occupants testified to no sound or light from within the house until the car was towed away at around 11.20pm. So now the time of death has to be late - after 11.20pm - if Knox and Sollecito are involved. Yet this is totally at odds with the autopsy's findings related to Meredith's stomach/duodenum contents.....

 

[christianahannah]

Nice work uncovering the relevant parts of the appeal. So, unless the appeal is dealing in flat-out lies (which I'd gauge as.....unlikely), it seems pretty clear that Quintavalle didn't ask Chiriboga if she'd seen Knox in the shop at around 8am on 2nd November until about a year after the event.

If this is true, then I suggest that it not only holes Quintavalle's credibility below the waterline (especially when taken in conjunction with his heavily-disputed testimony that he was not asked about Knox - or shown her photo - during the police visit to his shop on 17th November), but that it also seriously dents Massei's credibility - on account of his less-than-balanced interpretation of the evidence in this instance.

I doubt the appeals contain lies and I doubt Quintavalle lied when questioned by both the defense and prosecution in court. As in any situation, one must read the whole of an argument rather than excerpts, so I also doubt Massei's credibility is dented.

Perhaps Chiriboga was asked by Quintavalle if she noticed the girl who was present when he unlocked the store that very day, 2 November (not if she saw Amanda, he may have not known the girl was Amanda). Later when he was coaxed to go to the police with his information by his journalist friend, he asked Chiriboga if she remembered his asking that morning about the girl who was early at the store.

This, of course, is speculation as I was not in court when Quintavalle testified and have not seen the whole transcripts, however, I am not willing to concede anyone is lying or anyone's credibility is on the line. I would need more information to do so.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

sensitivity and dilution factors

You mean the knife that had approximately 10 cells on it? And being as TMB is able to detect concentrations that have a minimum of 5 blood cells before bleach and/or luminol is used, I think your point is not as valid as you would hope.

BobTheDonkey,

Besides the other problems I have noted, there is an additional problem in your assertions. You use a value of five cells as the detection limit of TMB. However, detection limits of TMB for hemoglobin are typically given as a dilution factor of whole blood, which is a relative concentration. To see the difference, consider that one milliliter (roughly one thimbleful) of blood contains about 5 billion erythrocytes (red blood cells), according to R. C. Kerber, Journal of Chemical Education (2007) 84, 1541-1545. Can we detect 5 billion red blood cells in whole blood? Sure. Can we detect 5 billion red blood cells diluted into a volume of water equal in volume to Lake Erie? Of course not; that is why one specifies the detection limits using a dilution factor.

J. L. Webb, J. I. Creamer and T. I. Quickenden Luminescence 2006; 21: 214–220.
This paper gives the maximum detectable dilutions for a commercial preparation of TMB as 1:100,000 for a dried 50-microliter bloodstain and 1:1,000,000 for a solution. The dilutions refer to a hemoglobin concentration of 150 g/L, which is an estimate of the physiological concentration of hemoglobin in blood. This tells us that the TMB test is very sensitive.

All chemical tests have a sensitivity limit. The question is what are the relative sensitivity limits for hemoglobin and for DNA in blood, bearing in mind that blood has lots of hemoglobin but is not rich in DNA. The Johnson/Hampikian open letter in November of 2009 stated, “This DNA does not originate from blood. A highly sensitive chemical test for blood was negative, and it is unlikely that all chemically detectable traces of blood could be removed while retaining sufficient cells to produce a DNA profile consistent with the victim.” Dr. Johnson was even more emphatic when interviewed by ABC, where she stated, “if someone had a knife covered in blood and they tried to clean it very well, they would remove their ability to detect the DNA before they removed the ability to detect the chemical traces of blood.”

 

[RoseMontague]

I've wondered before about this question of exactly when Quintavalle asked Chiriboga if she'd seen Amanda... I think the most revealing thing isn't even what the defence said about it, but the fact Massei is so vague - no reference to when it actually happened, just that it did. I'm pretty sure that if it had happened before Knox and Sollecito were arrested, Massei would've said that because it would make his argument a lot stronger.

If the defence are right that it didn't happen till a year later - well, it's ridiculous that Massei uses that as an argument to support Quintavalle's reliability. In fact if it happened any time after the arrests it shouldn't be used to support Quintavalle's reliability. Why assume that the question meant he definitely saw her anyway? It could just as easily show that he wasn't sure whether he saw her, and was hoping Chiriboga could confirm his story.

Massei must've been pretty short on facts supporting Quintavalle's reliability as a witness if he had to include that, LOL.

How incredibly rediculous his story is. This is a quote from Quintavalle in the link to follow:

"I can't remember if she bought anything. A few hours later I heard about the murder and then a few days later I saw Amanda's picture in the newspaper and I recognised her as the same girl.

"The shape of the face was the same, as was the nose, she was pretty. For me the girl in the newspapers was the same girl who had come into my supermarket at 7.45 in the morning.

So, two weeks later the police come by with pictures of Raffaele and Amanda and he doesnt remember seeing her. As HB says, it reeks.

Oh BTW, one more quote:

When asked by trial judge Giancarlo Massei if he recognised the girl from the supermarket in court Mr Quintavalle said: "It's her, I'm sure of it."

Thar she blows! Thar she blows! It is Moby Dick!

http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/Wo...-Perugia-Says-Witness/Article/200903315246339

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Catnip

Ahh...I see Catnip over on PMF has pompously set some "homework" involving straight-out-of-an-arcane-legal-textbook terms such as "counter-rejoinder" (hint: these terms are almost never heard in modern legal language - Catnip must have a very old reference book).

Anyway, the "homework" (patronising, anyone?) is to imagine how the prosecution will argue against the appeal submission regarding Quintavalle's credibility and reliability, and then to imagine how the defence will try to answer the prosecution's counter-argument.

I think some people are simply too heavily invested in a certain point of view in this case to make cogent arguments any longer. This may be why they are setting "homework" for others to make the prosecution arguments for them. Perhaps Catnip would like to get the ball rolling by imagining him/herself how the prosecution will prove Quintavalle's reliability/credibility in the appeal, against what looks to many people to be a pretty comprehensive defence argument.

Oh, and by the way, I'm inclined to believe that anyone who uses the term "groupies" (to describe anyone who doesn't agree with the verdicts of the first trial) is sufficiently biased and unpleasant as to warrant ignoring. If people really want a sensible debate, then they really ought to stop using puerile and pejorative terms such as these, and indeed to cut out all the personal insults altogether. Then we might be able to engage. But I have a funny feeling that engagement is not high up on the agenda for many of the people who believe that Knox/Sollecito's convictions were correct.

LondonJohn.

Catnip is the same commenter who believes that Rudy is "bettering himself in prison, studying law" and is a "typical youngster." I do not think that we need to be detained too long by Catnip's views on legal matters.

 

[LondonJohn]

BobTheDonkey,

Besides the other problems, I have noted there is an additional problem in your assertions. You use a value of five cells as the detection limit of TMB. However, detection limits of TMB for hemoglobin are typically given as a dilution factor of whole blood, which is a relative concentration. To see the difference, consider that one milliliter (roughly one thimbleful) of blood contains about 5 billion erythrocytes (red blood cells), according to R. C. Kerber, Journal of Chemical Education (2007) 84, 1541-1545. Can we detect 5 billion red blood cells in whole blood? Sure. Can we detect 5 billion red blood cells diluted into a volume of water equal in volume to Lake Erie? Of course not; that is why one specifies the detection limits using a dilution factor.

J. L. Webb, J. I. Creamer and T. I. Quickenden Luminescence 2006; 21: 214–220.
This paper gives the maximum detectable dilutions for a commercial preparation of TMB as 1:100,000 for a dried 50-microliter bloodstain and 1:1,000,000 for a solution. The dilutions refer to a hemoglobin concentration of 150 g/L, which is an estimate of the physiological concentration of hemoglobin in blood. This tells us that the TMB test is very sensitive.

All chemical tests have a sensitivity limit. The question is what are the relative sensitivity limits for hemoglobin and for DNA in blood, bearing in mind that blood has lots of hemoglobin but is not rich in DNA. The Johnson/Hampikian open letter in November of 2009 stated, “This DNA does not originate from blood. A highly sensitive chemical test for blood was negative, and it is unlikely that all chemically detectable traces of blood could be removed while retaining sufficient cells to produce a DNA profile consistent with the victim.” Dr. Johnson was even more emphatic when interviewed by ABC, where she stated, “if someone had a knife covered in blood and they tried to clean it very well, they would remove their ability to detect the DNA before they removed the ability to detect the chemical traces of blood.”

Your entirely valid points about dilution can be added to one other major problem in Mr The Donkey's reasoning: he appears to believe that there are such things as "blood cells" - which presumably contain both haemoglobin and DNA. Whereas of course blood is made up of many constituents - chief amongst which are red blood cells (which contain haemoglobin but no DNA) and white blood cells (which do contain DNA). And the typical ratio of red blood cells to white blood cells is somewhere between 800:1 and 1000:1 - meaning that if a 10 DNA-containing white blood cells are present, then between 8,000 and 10,000 haemoglobin-containing red blood cells should also be present.

So if Merediths' DNA on the knife had come from her blood, then it's almost axiomatic that the knife blade would also test positive with a TMB test (which reacts to the haemoglobin in the red blood cells). If the prosecution claims that the knife was cleaned with bleach, this would indeed have destroyed the haemoglobin - but it would also have destroyed all the DNA on the blade. The fact that the TMB test came back negative but the DNA test came back positive is incredibly difficult to explain in any way other than contamination.

 

[katy_did]

Nice work uncovering the relevant parts of the appeal. So, unless the appeal is dealing in flat-out lies (which I'd gauge as.....unlikely), it seems pretty clear that Quintavalle didn't ask Chiriboga if she'd seen Knox in the shop at around 8am on 2nd November until about a year after the event.

If this is true, then I suggest that it not only holes Quintavalle's credibility below the waterline (especially when taken in conjunction with his heavily-disputed testimony that he was not asked about Knox - or shown her photo - during the police visit to his shop on 17th November), but that it also seriously dents Massei's credibility - on account of his less-than-balanced interpretation of the evidence in this instance.

Fully agree about Massei - even the fact he mentions Quintavalle asking the question of Chiriboga, but doesn't specify exactly when that question was asked (because he knows full well it doesn't support his argument) suggests a very dishonest approach. Even if we forget about the defence claim this happened a year later, there's a huge difference between Quintavalle asking the question before the arrests, and afterwards. Massei has to know that, and deals with it by omitting to mention the date when this comment was made because he knows it'll make his argument weaker.

Sometimes I seriously wonder whether Massei deliberately set up such a weak case so that it could be overturned on appeal, heh. Some of the arguments completely defy logic.

 

[Alt+F4]

As for the time of death, Meredith's cell phone records give us another clue. At 9:58 PM there was an attempt to connect with her voice mail. At 10:00 PM, a failed attempt to connect with Abby Bank in the UK. Assuming that Meredith knew how to use her own phone, these calls indicate that it was in the hands of someone else at 10 PM. At 10:13 the phone received a MMS message and connected via a different cell tower that covers an area between the cottage and the garden where Meredith's phones were found the next day

Meredith might have had those numbers as her speed dials and they may have been pressed by her and/or the killers during the struggle, meaning the murder occured closer to 10pm. As for the received call, since the tower convered the area between the cottage and garden there is no way to prove that the phone still wasn't in the cottage at 10:15.

 

[Alt+F4]

Well, you might want to ask the people who run - and post on - TJMK or PMF what the heck this has to do with anything. I'm as bemused as you as to why the possible drink-drive behaviour (as yet without any charges) of a woman in Seattle who has not been engaged by anyone involved in the Kercher case should be of such immense interest to them. The nasty zeal with which they have set about this woman (including "humorous" sarcastic pastiches of her situation) were worth commenting upon, in my opinion.

And, Alt+F4, I post about posts on other forums because a) other forums bring up topics that bear analysis and scrutiny, and b) I am prevented from analysing or scrutinising these topics on those forums. Maybe you should instead ask the people who run those forums what their "admission policy" really is - because it seems to most objective observers that any deviation from a firm belief in Knox/Sollecito's convictions will - sooner rather than later - result in one being "asked to leave", usually coupled with "thanks for stopping by".

I ask, because some of your posts that refer to posts on other sites are confusing. I only post at the JREF and I don't read PMF or Frank's site because they are both white type on black background and that bothers my eyes.

 

[katy_did]

How incredibly rediculous his story is. This is a quote from Quintavalle in the link to follow:

So, two weeks later the police come by with pictures of Raffaele and Amanda and he doesnt remember seeing her. As HB says, it reeks.

Oh BTW, one more quote:

Thar she blows! Thar she blows! It is Moby Dick!

http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/Wo...-Perugia-Says-Witness/Article/200903315246339

LOL

Apparently we're supposed to think for our homework about what the prosecution argument will be, but the only thing I can think of is "Inspector Volturno didn't specifically ask Quintavalle if he saw Amanda Knox wearing a grey coat and hanging around the cleaning products aisle without actually buying anything on the morning of 2 November, so Quintavalle didn't realize he was supposed to mention it"...

(To paraphrase a quote from The Green Mile, "Mr Quintavalle, how many years did you spend urinating on the toilet seat before someone told you to lift it up?" I mean, duh).

 

[katy_did]

A bit more on Quintavalle from Amanda's appeal, particularly Inspector Volturno testifying that he asked him about Amanda and showed him photos of her - even asked him if he saw her buying bleach in the days before or after the murder...

During the trial hearings, Inspector Volturno stated that: "As regards the two bottles of Ace bleach that were seized from Raffaele Sollecito's house on 16 November 2007: immediately after the seizure I went around the shops in the neighbourhood of Raffaele Sollecito's building trying to find out where the purchase could have been made, and for this purpose I showed photographs of Raffaele Sollecito and Amanda Knox. After a few days we found a Conad-Margherita shop situated just at the beginning of Corso Garibaldi, where both the owner and the assistants recognized Raffaele Sollecito and Amanda Knox in the photographs we showed them. Raffaele Sollecito was a regular client of the shop, whilst the girl had been seen two or three times in his company. QUESTION - Together with Sollecito? RESPONSE - Yes, yes, in his company" (transcript hearing 21 March 2009).

Therefore, Inspector Volturno brought the photographs of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito to the attention of the owner of the Conad shop in order to verify "whether they might by chance have noticed these people buying this product in the days immediately before or after the murder, but they didn't remember" (transcript hearing 21 March 2009). [...]

The inspector expressly reported having put the question both to Quintavalle and to his two assistants:

QUESTION - Who did you speak to? [Who did you hear?]
RESPONSE - Quintavalle, (Chiriboga) since she is his assistant and another girl whose name I don't recall now>> (transcript hearing 13 March 2009).

QUESTION - You said previously that you had photographs of Amanda and Raffaele.
RESPONSE - That's right.
QUESTION - And you showed them to the people who were inside the shop?
RESPONSE - Yes.
QUESTION - Therefore both the owner and his assistants.
RESPONSE - Yes.
QUESTION - You said that you asked the manager of the business if he had seen the two defendants.
RESPONSE - Yes, exactly.
QUESTION - What was his exact response?
RESPONSE - He said that Sollecito was a regular client whilst Amanda Knox was seen on a couple of occasions in Sollecito's company" (transcript hearing 13 March 2009, page 203).

Inspector Volturno explicitly asked Quintavalle whether he recognized the photographs of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito and whether he had seen them buy bleach in a period close to the murder. Quintavalle only recognized Amanda Knox as the girl whom he had seen enter the shop on a couple of occasions, but always in the company of Raffaele Sollecito. No mention to the investigators of the presence of Amanda Knox in his shop on the morning after the murder.

 

[katy_did]

And the Italian original of the above, from pages 155 and 156 of Amanda's appeal:

Nel corso dell’audizione dibattimentale l’ispettore Volturno ha affermato che : <<in merito a due flaconi di candeggina Ace che erano stati sequestrati a casa di Raffaele Sollecito in data 16 novembre del 2007. Subito dopo il sequestro mi recai in giro per i negozi limitrofi all’abitazione di Raffaele Sollecito cercando di capire da dove potessero essere stati acquistati e a tal proposito esibivo la fotografia di Raffaele Sollecito, la fotografia di Amanda Knox. Dopo alcuni giorni rintracciammo il negozio che era un negozio Conad – Margherita sito subito all’inizio di Corso Garibaldi, dove sia il titolare che le commesse riconobbero nelle fotografie che noi ponemmo in visione, Raffaele Sollecito ed Amanda Knox. Raffaele Sollecito era cliente abituale di questo negozio, mentre la ragazza era stata vista due o tre volte in sua compagnia DOMANDA – Insieme con Sollecito? RISPOSTA – Sì, sì, in sua compagnia>>(trascrizioni udienza 21 marzo 2009).

L’ispettore Volturno aveva, quindi, sottoposto all’attenzione del titolare del negozio Conad le fotografie di Amanda Knox e Raffaele Sollecito al fine di verificare <<se per caso avessero notato nei giorni immediatamente precedenti all’omicidio o subito dopo se ricordavano che queste persone avessero acquistato questo prodotto, però non ricordavano>> (trascrizioni udienza 21 marzo 2009). [...]

L’ispettore ha riferito espressamente di aver posto le domande sia al Quintavalle sia alle sue collaboratrici:

<<Chi ha sentito? RISPOSTA – Quintavalle, la (Kiriboga) perché è sua commessa ed un’altra ragazza della quale non ricordo il nome adesso>>(trascrizioni udienza 13 marzo 2009).

<<DOMANDA: Lei ha prima detto che aveva delle fotografie di Amanda e Raffaele. RISPOSTA – Esatto. DOMANDA – E le ha fatte vedere alle persone che si trovavano all’interno dell’alimentari? RISPOSTA – Sì. DOMANDA – Quindi sia il titolare sia le commesse. RISPOSTA – Sì. DOMANDA – Lei ha detto che ha chiesto al gestore dell’attività commerciale se avesse mai visto i due imputati. RISPOSTA – Esatto. DOMANDA – Esattamente la risposta qual è stata? RISPOSTA – Disse che il Sollecito era cliente abituale mentre la Amanda Knox era stata vista in un paio di occasioni in compagnia del Sollecito>> (trascrizioni udienza 13 marzo 2009, pag. 203).

L’ispettore Volturno, chiese espressamente al Quintavalle se riconosceva le fotografie di Amanda Knox e Raffaele Sollecito e se li avesse visti acquistare candeggina in un periodo prossimo al delitto. Quintavalle si limitò a riconoscere in Amanda Knox la ragazza che aveva visto entrare nel suo negozio in un paio di occasioni, ma sempre in compagnia di Raffaele Sollecito. Nulla riferì agli inquirenti circa la presenza di Amanda Knox nel proprio negozio la mattina dopo l’omicidio.