Sandra Felgueiras - 5 Para a Meia Noite

The moment Filomena Cautela is thrown back about dogs being dogs.

The “5 Para a Meia-Noite” (5 to Midnight) program on RTP1 is a late-night talk-show similar to so many worldwide. Last Thursday, Marc 28, Sandra Felgueiras was one of the guests.

In fact she was the first guest. This may not be relevant but the order of how the guests enter is only relevant in terms of whom they have to share the “stage” with. The first guest is alone with the host, the second guest, even though the main star of the respective segment, may get the interventions of the first guest who has remained.

The last guest, has to share the stage with all. Sandra Felgueiras was the first guest that night and was entitled to 2 segments before the second guest was brought in

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…”

Then this was the second segment of SF’s interview:

Filomena Cautela (FC): Sandra Felgueiras, I must say, I had to do a lot of work for you to come here and it was not only out of the great admiration for you but because I did binge-watching, which is called kind of, 2 days in a row to see the damn documentary of Maddie McCann's documentary and I got sick with it, that’s it. And I think everyone who saw the documentary, I don’t know if anyone here in the audience has seen, but .... the documentary is big, it's 8 episodes, and you ... it's extraordinary, because you appear very, very much in the documentary, and you talk a lot in the documentary. Did you have the notion that they were going to put so much of your interview?

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: ... because I appear up to the fifth, I went to see several times, why? Because the first time I was uncomfortable, the second one I understood better, and the third I took it all in ...

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.

FC: Exactly.

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 ...

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.

 (Applause)

FC: Oh Sandra, let me just say, thank you very much for what you have just told me, I do not know if the people there at home understood exactly, I think so, what we are talking about, but in fact the courage that you had to come and say, look, I've given this news and the news you gave spread all over the world, and the whole world starts to have a completely different opinion of Maddie's parents, and you had the courage of when you knew the truth to say, I now know this, you, as you just said you could have said nothing and you said it. The problem is that I think then the whole world was no longer listening, and I think the problem is that the whole world only maintained in their head that, ah, they're guilty ... We'll continue to talk with Sandra ...

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’ appearance in this program did not have much repercussion on the Portuguese media.

This is what we could find after googling about it:

On RTP:

https://www.atelevisao.com/rtp/sandra-felgueiras-admite-ter-sido-enganada-por-goncalo-amaral/

Sandra Felgueiras admits being deceived by Gonçalo Amaral

March 29 2019

Ana Daniela Pereira

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.

"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 confidenciou também que  ligou a Gonçalo Amaral para lhe pedir explicações. “Se há a probabilidade de a criança estar viva, por mais mínima e ínfima que seja, não se parte para a tese ‘os pais mataram-na’ e não se procura mais. Isto deixou-me profundamente revoltada”, admitiu.

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.


On ‘VIP’, a gossip magazine:

https://www.vip.pt/sandra-felgueiras-sobre-o-documentario-de-maddie-mccann-eu-fui-enganada

Sandra Felgueiras on the Maddie McCann documentary

"I was deceived"

National

The journalist Sandra Felgueiras was this Thursday, March 28, in RTP's program 5 Para A Meia Noite, and spoke about the Netflix documentary 'The Disappearance of Madeleine McCann'

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. 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".

Madeleine McCann disappeared in May 2007 in Praia da Luz, Algarve.



On MSN:

https://www.msn.com/pt-pt/entretenimento/5-meia-noite/sandra-felgueiras-fala-sobre-o-seu-envolvimento-no-caso-maddie/vi-BBVme3z

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:

https://www.tv7dias.pt/sandra-felgueiras-documentario-madeleine-mccann-idiota-pegada/5pmn-2

Home> Sandra Felgueiras on participation in documentary: "I'M NOT A TOTAL FOOL"> 5 para a meia noite sandra felgueiras

5 para a meia noite sandra felgueiras

29 Mar 2019 | 10:07

A picture of Sandra Felgueiras and no text.


We would say not what would be expected after a bombshell dropped about a “documentary that is basically dethroning the whole world” and about which “people are going very crazy with”.

We do have to say that we find it very strange that after feeling angry in July 2008 about the fact that Mr Amaral had apparently lied to her, knowing that “Dogs ... they are, they are dogs!” and that the “biological” samples retrieved from the apartment and car were “criminally irrelevant”, that Sandra Felgueiras would, in 2009 do this interview with the McCanns:

https://joana-morais.blogspot.com/2009/11/gerry-mccann-ask-dogs-sandra.html

Back to the program on Thursday, it has a segment for each guest called “Pressure in the Air”. This consists of each guest having to answer quickly questions facing a camera and with the back to the program hosts. This is the video of Sandra Felgueiras in her “Pressure in the Air” that night:

At 00:54:

Filomena Cautela (FC): Sandra, having met the McCanns made you be in favour of Brexit?

Sandra Felgueiras: Ahahaha, good question ... hey, man I've never been in favour of Brexit

FC: That’s good…

SF: And I love the McCann couple!

Adding this video as well, thanking Anonymous 31 Mar 2019, 12:00:00,

Post Scriptum:

For historic registry, the original Portuguese transcripts:

Transcript #1:

Ò Sandra, eu queria ainda falar contigo sobre o documentário que está basicamente a destronar o mundo inteiro, as pessoas estão a ficar muito doidas com o documentário da Maddie, da Madeleine McCann, mas já falamos sobre isso porque para já no nosso backstage…

 
Transcript #2:

Filomena Cautela (FC): Sandra Felgueiras, eu devo-te dizer, eu, fiz muita força para vires cá e não foi só pela grande admiração por ti mas, porque eu estive a fazer binge-watching, que se chama tipo, 2 dias seguidos a ver o raio do documentário da Maddie McCann e eu fiquei doente com aquilo, pronto. E o que acho que toda a gente que viu o documentário, não sei se alguém aqui na plateia já viu, mas…. é grande o documentário, são 8 episódios, e tu… é extraordinário, porque tu apareces muito, muito no documentário, e falas muito no documentário. Tu tinhas noção que eles iam pôr tanto da tua entrevista?
Sandra Felgueiras (SF): Não, não fazia a menor ideia.
FC: Porque na verdade é que aquilo vai ficar para toda a gente ver para todo o sempre e é um documentário internacional, é mundial, é mundialmente as pessoas podem ver aquilo, tu não fazias ideia que tu és, não és, não és uma das grandes protagonistas do documentário, mas utilizaram muito o teu testemunho…
SF: Utilizaram, eles precisavam de… de… eles construiram aquela narrativa de vamos descredibilizar tudo aquilo que foi feito em Portugal…
FC: … exactamente…
SF: … e vamos explicar que Madeleine está viva e portanto efectivamente aquilo que eu lhes fui contando correspondia à intenção que eles tinham e que acabaram por verter em oitos episódios, e eu digo-te francamente que a primeira vez que vi, porque eu já vi duas vezes...
FC: … sim
SF: … não vi intregralmente…
FC: … não viste?
SF: …os episódios 2 vezes mas já vi uma vez, mais uma e meia…
FC: … ok…
SF: … porque eu apareço até ao quinto, fui ver várias vezes, porquê? Porque a primeira vez fiquei desconfortável, a segunda percebi melhor, e a terceira encaixei…
FC: … ok...
SF: … e porque fiquei desconfortável? Porque eu não sei se para as pessoas que não acompanharam como eu que vivi aquilo intensamente, o caso de Madeleine McCann, se percebeu efectivamente o que eu quis dizer. Porque eu quis dizer uma coisa muito simples: um jornalista não revela as suas fontes , o jornalista só tem necessidade de falar com eles e com necessidade de falar com Gonçalo Amaral por uma questão muito concreta e… e perigosa, que é eu fui enganada. E fui enganada em quê?
FC: Exactamente…
SF: Eu foi-me contado que a amostra de sangue encontrada no carro e no quarto dos McCann, aliás na sala dos McCann correspondia, sem margem para dúvidas a Madd… a Madeleine McCann…
FC: … exactamente…
SF: … e isso criou em mim a convicção, porque eu acreditava piamente no Gonçalo Amaral, e com ele tive uma relaçao encetada fonte/jornalista…
FC: O que eu fico surpreendida é que todas as pessoa que aqui estão acreditavam nisto, eu acho que todas as pessoas em Portugal acreditavam que os pais tinham alguma coisa a ver com aquilo e hoje em dia se eu perguntar a esta plateia, que não vou fazer, mas se eu peguntar a esta plateia o que é que vocês acham, os pais da Madeleine McCann têm a ver com aquilo ou não, eu tenho a certeza que muitas pessoas vão dizer que sim, e eu própria também achava que sim… depois vi o documentário!
SF: Mas tu repara, a opinião pública achava que sim, porque durante vários meses , ouviu com muita intensidade dizer-se os pais são suspeitos, e isto criou em toda a gente a convicção que aquilo era verdade e criou dúvida nos jornalistas, até que em Julho de 2008, um ano depois…
FC: … sim…
SF: … vem finalmente os, os ficheiros secretos que se tornaram público e nós podemos ler porque o processo tem estado em segredo de justiça, o que efectivamente diziam os resultados do laboratório de Birmingham que confirmou a análise do sangue, da amostra biológica, nem era sangue…
FC: … não eram da Maddie?
SF: Não, o relatório era assustador porque o relatório dizia assim, e eu lembro-me perfeitamente, a amostra de sangue tem 5 alelos em 20 possíveis , no quarto, e no carro 17 em 20. A amostra…
FC: O que é que isso quer dizer?
SF: Quer dizer que uma amostra de sangue, uma amostra biológica… por exemplo, os teus, os teus alelos, a tua composição genética corresponde a 20 alelos, se encontrarem 17 em 20, significa que é muito provável…
FC: … que seja meu.
SF: … que seja teu, agora o problema é que o último parágrafo deste relatório dos peritos dizia: contudo a amostra é tão insignificante e tão infíma que aqui no laboratório onde nós estamos, existem mais de cem pessoas que têm uma amostra idêntica, o que faz com que esta amostra seja criminalmente irrelevante.
FC: Portanto, é mentira.
SF: Eh, pá, eu quando leio aquilo, liguei para o Gonçalo Amaral e desculpe lá, você está a brincar na maionese, há aqui… o que se passou aqui? Ai, não, é que eles não traduziram aqui o último parágrafo e então eu estava convencido que era… mas repare, os cães cheiraram, os cães farejaram, um cheirava cadáver e outro cheirava sangue e eles deram sinal… efectivamente deram sinal, só que os cães não vão a tribunal , não é? Os cães… são, são cães!
FC: Os cães, são cães!
SF: São cães, pronto , é… e portanto os cães também não encontraram a Madeleine, e até prova em contrário, se tens a probabilidade, nem que seja mínima, infíma de que a criança estar viva, não vais partir para a tese, os pais mataram-na e agora esquece lá, não vamos procurá-la.
FC: Exacto.
SF: E isto deixou-me profundamente revoltada.
FC: Eu também! Eu ainda não estou bem, depois do que me dizes!
SF: Não, mas repara, não, só para te explicar porque este ponto para mim é bastante importante. Eu primeiro fiquei desconfortável porque pensei, as pessoas vão ver isto e vão pensar: “a Sandra Felgueiras é uma idiota pegada que revela fontes”. Não, eu não sou uma idiota pegada, ponto número um, e segundo, eu não revelo as minha fontes, mas eu tenho um príncipio muito, muito claro na minha cabeça para todo o sempre, é que há um artigo no código deontológico dos jornalistas que diz que nós podemos, eu digo de que nós devemos, devemos dizer a verdade sempre que nos sentirmos enganados por uma fonte, e foi isso que aconteceu. Portanto, eu não estaria a ser correcta comigo própria e muito menos com os telespectadores que me ouviram e…
FC: … que não disseste que te mentiram..
SF: Repara, eu senti que vos enganei porque me mentiram…
FC: …pois é.
SF: … e se eu não dissesse isto, às tantas era mais confortável para a minha carreira, para o meu bom nome, para muita coisa…
FC: … sim…
SF: … mas não era confortável para aquilo que é o meu lema que é a verdade, e contar a verdade, custe o que custar, doa a quem doer, nem que nesse caso me doa a mim. Tenho de perguntar uma coisa que não é propriamente habitual entre jornalistas.
FC: Pois é.
(Aplausos)
FC: Ó Sandra , deixa-me só dizer, muito obrigada por aquilo que acabaste de dizer, não sei se as pessoas aí em casa perceberam exactamente, eu acho que sim, o que estamos a falar, mas de facto a coragem que tu tiveste a vir dizer, olha, eu dei esta notícia e uma notícia que tu deste espalhou-se pelo mundo inteiro, e o mundo inteiro começa a ter uma opinião completamente diferente em relação aos pais da Maddie, e tu tiveste a coragem de quando soubeste a verdade dizer, eu agora sei isto, tu como acabaste de dizer podias ter dito nada e tu disseste. O problema é que eu acho que aí o mundo inteiro já não estava a ouvir,e acho que o problema aí é que o mundo inteiro só ficou na cabeça que, ah, eles são culpados… Nós já vamos continuar a conversar com a Sandra…
SF: E há aqui… e é esse o grande problema de tudo, sabes?
FC: Pois é, pois é, por isso é que eu gostava muito que viesses cá, muito obrigada!

 
Transcript #3:

FC: Teres conhecido os McCann fez-te ser a favor do Brexit?
SF: Ahahaha, grande pergunta… eh, pá eu nunca fui a favor do Brexit
FC: Ora bem…
SF: E adoro o casal McCann!



Post Scriptum II:

(Thanks to Anonymous 31 Mar 2019, 18:34:00)

https://www.atelevisao.com/rtp/filomena-cautela-e-sandra-felgueiras-arrasadas-pelos-telespectadores/

Filomena Cautela and Sandra Felgueiras razed by viewers

March 31, 2019
Vanessa Jesus

A publication on the Facebook page of '5 Para a Meia Noite', a program featured on RTP1, to recollect Sandra Felgueiras' interview, was flooded with negative criticism not only to the guest as to the presenter. Last Thursday the journalist Sandra Felgueiras was one of the guests of the program where she talked about the Netflix documentary about the disappearance of Maddie McCann.

The journalist ended up confessing to having felt deceived by the source, Gonçalo Amaral. Throughout the conversation they were talking about the possibility of the child being alive and also of the parents being or not involved in the disappearance. Filomena Cautela confessed at the outset that she it made a lot of work for the journalist to go to the program because of the "great admiration" she has for her and for the documentary that made her "sick."

During the conversation in which Sandra Felgueiras talked about what happened and what led her to breaking her trust in the ex-inspector, the presenter said: "But you know what is extraordinary? I will be very direct now, I think all the people in Portugal believed that the parents had something to do with it. And nowadays, if I ask this audience, what I will not do, if the parents have anything to do with it or not, I am sure many people will say yes. And I also thought so, but then I saw the documentary”. Sandra Felgueiras concluded: “It was this that mad ne angry”, Filomena Cautela immediately replied, "Me too, I'm still not well, after I've seen this”.

If, on the one hand, there were those who had said they liked the interview, on the other, there were many who revolted not only against the journalist but also Filomena Cautela. "Filomena is much better than this, you who for many times have not been afraid to talk about some more sensitive issues, you change your mind for a netflix documentary about it and that ignores mountains of questions that have never been answered”, "I want to see if Filomena will invite Mr. Amaral to go to the program", "And you promoting a journalist who was never coherent is really top, thank goodness for friendship"or" This program made me change my opinion about Sandra Felgueiras and Filomena Cautela ... for worse! Dislike no 5 Para a Meia Noite”, or I changed my opinion for worse, much worse, regarding Filomena and Felgueiras”, were some of the opinions left in the published video. 



Post Scriptum III:

A good friend of the blog has sent us a video clip from today’s Australia Channel 7 Sunrise program:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunrise_(Australian_TV_program) 

Voice over: Samples were collected during the investigation following Maddie’s disappearance inn 2007, including the boot of a car rented by the toddler’s parents after she was reported missing.

 Dr Mark Perlin: The British government simply lacked the tools to analyse the data. The point is to go back and look at this data, if we have access to it, and let the computer separate out of the DNA profiles of the different people who left their DNA, make a comparison and produce a statistic that shows if they’re there or not.