Interesting:
From Textusa blog
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.
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 truly 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!
