In the first interview segment was about praising SF on what a courageous journalist she was. And about her role in the case of Pedro Dias – a man who, according to the Portuguese justice system, killed in cold-blood a GNR officer, put his body in the boot of the patrol-car and forced the other GNR officer to drive him around in it, shot him later in the head (he survived), then killed a young couple heading to a fertility consultation and hijacked their car and during the days he was on the run, kept a couple hostage in a house exerting physical violence over them. SF is linked to Pedro Dias because his lawyer called the reporter and handed himself over to the authorities as long as it was all done live on TV.
This segment ended with the following words from the host Filomena Cautela: “Sandra, I still want to talk to you about the documentary that is basically dethroning the whole world, people are going very crazy with Maddie’s… Madeleine McCann's documentary, but we will talk about it but for now in our backstage…”
Sandra Felgueiras (SF): No, I had no idea.
FC: Because in truth that is going to be there for everyone to see forever and it's an international documentary, it's worldwide, people can see it worldwide, you had no idea you are, you're not, you're not one of the documentary’s biggest protagonists, but they used your testimony a lot ...
SF: They used, they needed to ... to ... they built that narrative of let’s discredit everything that was done in Portugal ...
FC: ... exactly ...
SF: ... and let's explain that Madeleine is alive and effectively what I was telling them corresponded to the intention they had and they ended up pouring it into eight episodes, and I tell you frankly that the first time I saw it, because I’ve already seen it twice ...
FC: … Yes
SF: ... I did not see them fully ...
FC: ... you didn’t see?
SF: ... the episodes twice but I've seen it once, one and a half ...
FC: ... ok ...
SF: ... and why did I become uncomfortable? Because I do not know if for those who did not follow like I who lived that with intensity, the Madeleine McCann case, did effectively understand what I meant to say. Because I wanted to say something very simple: a journalist does not reveal her sources, the journalist only needs to talk to them and need to talk to Gonçalo Amaral because of a very concrete question and ... and dangerous one, that's how I was deceived. And I was deceived in what?
FC: Exactly ...
SF: I was told that the blood sample found in the car and in the McCanns' bedroom, or rather the McCanns’ living room, belonged without a margin of doubt to Madd ... Madeleine McCann ...
FC: ... exactly ...
SF: ... and that created in me the conviction, because I piously believed in Gonçalo Amaral, and with him I had a relationship started as source-journalist ...
FC: What surprises me is that all the people who are here believed this, I think that all the people in Portugal believed that the parents had something to do with that and nowadays if I ask this audience, which I won’t do, but if I ask this audience what do you think, Madeleine McCann's parents have to do with that or not, I'm sure a lot of people will say yes, and I thought so too ... I then saw the documentary!
SF: But notice, the public opinion thought so, because for several months, they heard it said with a lot of intensity the parents are suspects, and this created in everyone the conviction that this was true and raised doubts in journalists, until that in July 2008, a year later ...
FC: ... yes ...
SF: ... finally come the secret files that have become public and we can read because the process has been in secrecy of justice, what the results of the laboratory of Birmingham actually said that confirmed the analysis of blood, the biological sample, wasn’t even blood…
FC: ... they were not from Maddie?
SF: No, the report was frightening because the report said this, and I remember perfectly, the blood sample has 5 alleles in 20 possible, in the bedroom, and in the car 17 in 20. The sample ...
FC: What does that mean?
SF: It means that a blood sample, a biological sample ... for example, yours, your alleles, your genetic makeup corresponds to 20 alleles, if they find 17 out of 20, it means it's very probable ...
FC: ... that it’s mine.
SF: ... that it is yours, now the problem is that the last paragraph of this report from the experts said: however the sample is so insignificant and so tiny that here in the laboratory where we are, there are more than a hundred people who have an identical sample, and that makes this sample criminally irrelevant.
FC: So it's a lie.
SF: Hey, man, when I read that, I called Goncalo Amaral and I'm sorry, you're playing in the mayonnaise, here is ... what has happened here? “Oh, no, they did not translate the last paragraph here and then I was convinced it was ... but look, the dogs sniffed, the dogs smelled, one sniffed cadaver and the other sniffed blood and they alerted ...”, effectively they alerted, only the dogs do not go to court, do they? Dogs ... they are, they are dogs!
FC: The dogs, they are dogs!
SF: They are dogs, that's it, it’s... and so the dogs also did not find Madeleine, and until there’s proof to the contrary, if you have the probability, even if it's minimal, tiny that the child is alive, you’re not going to embark on the thesis the parents killed her and now let’s forget it, we’re not going to look for her.
SF: And this left me deeply angry.
FC: Me too! I'm still not well, after what you are telling me!
SF: No, but notice, no, just to explain because this point is quite important to me. I was first uncomfortable because I thought, people will see this and they will think: "Sandra Felgueiras is a total fool who reveals sources." No, point number one, I am not a total fool, and second, I do not reveal my sources, but I have a very, very clear principle in my head forever, there is an article in the journalists’ code of ethics which says we can, I say we should, tell the truth whenever we feel deceived by a source, and that's what happened. So, I would not be correct with myself and let alone with the viewers who heard me and ...
Si GA est la source (il nie), il ne mentait pas (hypothèse idiote), mais croyait ou voulait croire.
FC: ... you did not say they lied to you ..
SF: Look, I felt that I lied to you because I was lied to ...
FC: ... so it is.
SF: ... and if I did not say this, probably it would be more comfortable for my career, for my good name, for a lot of things...
FC: ... yes ...
SF: ... but it would not be comfortable for what is my motto that is the truth, and tell the truth, no matter what the costs, hurts who has hurt, even if in this case it hurts me. I have to ask something that is not exactly common among journalists.
FC: So it is.
SF: And here is ... and that is the biggest problem of all, you know?
FC: So it is, so it is, that's why I really liked for you to have come here, thank you very much!
Sandra Felgueiras admits being deceived by Gonçalo Amaral
The documentary about the disappearance of Maddie McCann continues to be spoken about and it was in this week’s edition of '5 para a Meia Noite' week that Sandra Fegueiras, a RTP journalist who followed the case of the English girl, decided to clarify her participation in the documentary. Sandra Felgueiras told Filomena Cautela that her source on the blood samples question was Gonçalo Amaral himself, the former inspector who led the case of the disappearance.
Mais dans le documentaire GA nie avoir parlé des résultats des FSS avec SF.
"This created in me the conviction of the involvement of the parents, because I believed in Gonçalo Amaral. With him I kept a relationship of source and journalist for several months, " she explained.
However, when the reports are made public, Sandra Felgueiras says she discovers that she had been deceived. "The report was frightening and said as follows: The blood sample has five alleles in 20 possible (from the bedroominfinitlyl) and in the car 17 in 20. However, the sample is so insignificant and so tiny that here in the laboratory there are at least 100 people who have an identical sample, which makes this sample criminally irrelevant”, she said.
Sandra also confided that she called Gonçalo Amaral to ask him for explanations. "If there is a probability that the child is alive, no matter how minimal and tiny, one does not take part in the thesis 'the parents killed her' and don’t look for her anymore. This left me deeply angry”, she admitted.
In the documentary, the journalist had already presented this version of the facts, stressing that she felt deceived by the source - Gonçalo Amaral - situation that the ex-inspector denies categorically.
Sandra Felgueiras on the Maddie McCann documentary
The Netflix documentary 'The Disappearance of Madeleine McCann' was released two weeks ago. The journalist Sandra Felgueiras, one of the protagonists, reveals that she felt "uncomfortable" when she saw the series.
"I went to see it several times because the first time I was uncomfortable, the second I understood better and the third I took it in," begins by saying in the program 5 Para a Meia Noite, RTP, this Thursday, March 28, explaining then the reasons of such discomfort.
"I don’t know if the people who did not follow the case like me, who lived that intensely, understood what I meant. I wanted to say something very simple”, she explains, referring to the fact that not only did she reveal that one of her sources was the then inspector of the PJ Gonçalo Amaral but also that he had lied to her.
"A journalist does not reveal her sources. I only needed to talk about Gonçalo Amaral for a concrete and dangerous reason. I was deceived. Par elle-même, qui a cru au lieu d'investiguer ? I was told that the blood sample found in the car and the McCanns' living room belonged to Madeleine”, recalls Sandra Felgueiras.
The journalist and face of the investigation program Sexta às 9 further admits that she feared that the public opinion had a negative impression on her testimony in the Netflix documentary.
"I was uncomfortable because I thought people would find 'Sandra Felgueiras is a total fool who reveals sources'. No, I'm not a fool, and second, I do not reveal my sources. But I have a very clear principle in my head. There is an article in the code of ethics that says that we should tell the truth whenever we feel deceived by a source. And this is what happened".
Sandra Felgueiras talks about her involvement in the Maddie case
Besides this heading, this page only has a video and a single sentence, which repeats the headline “Sandra Felgueiras talks about her involvement in the Maddie case”
On ‘TV 7 dias’, a TV guide magazine, 29.03.2019
Sandra Felgueiras on participation in documentary: "I'M NOT A TOTAL FOOL
A picture of Sandra Felgueiras and no text.
Tout ce peu-là à propos d'un documentaire "basiquement détrônant le monde entier", censé "enthousiasmer les gens"..
Il est incompréhensible que SF, avec tout ce poids de déception et de lucidité sur le coeur, ait entrepris de questionner les MC sur les chiens etc. en 2009.