19 May 2009

The McCanns’ interview to SIC: Fallacies and more Fallacies or the antechamber to the Swan Song?

by Paulo Sargento

The Interview that Rita Jordão, a SIC corresponding journalist in London, carried out with the McCann couple, and which the station broadcast in May 2009, seems to have been yet another opportunity for the desperate and inconsistent defence of two issues, that are, in practical terms, indefensible: firstly, that Madeleine is alive, and secondly, that she only hasn’t been found yet because of a blockage that results from the propagation of Gonçalo Amaral’s theory, which apart from insisting that the little girl is dead, insists on the fact that the parents know that and, eventually, concealed the cadaver.

The beginning of the interview is marked by a ‘Mitchellian’ speech style, in which Gerry McCann is more competent than his wife Kate. Considering the last two years as the “longest” ones of his life, Gerry managed, simultaneously and subtly, to state that time went by very quickly, “too quickly”, a paradox that offered Kate the opportunity to, once more, inadvertently, suggest her process of irreparable grief, when she sustained that the initial times were the hardest ones in her life and that, despite becoming less “raw”, they still remain painful. But this is merely an issue of style that we have already become used to.



The twins, who are always introduced in the couple’s speeches, through their own initiative or by suggestion from the journalists, offer the perfect opportunity to introduce the theme of an incomplete family that awaits the arrival of a member in order to consecrate some kind of original union, bearing the most supreme of happiness, where some kind of mystical omnipresence (“she is always with us”) is materialised by the overly exhibitionist maintenance of artefacts (Maddie’s room remained intact) and demonstrated by Sean and Amelie’s implanted memories and their longing “by proxy”. Nevertheless, concerning the fact that everything is in constant harmony awaiting Maddie (from the supposed longing by her siblings up to the maintenance of her belongings) it is grotesque, to say the least, that they dress Amelie in her clothes and, on top of that, mention the fact to her. And what can be said about the appropriation of their beliefs concerning the events, when Gerry says that “they believe that [Maddie] was abducted”? Of course the children believe what the adults tell them, although it’s a vain and very uncertain hope, or, worse, an obvious lie. But adults also often say what suits them concerning the thoughts of children, although that constitutes merely a skewed interpretation or also an intentional manipulation.

Allow me one confession. From my point of view, journalist Rita Jordão asked simple questions, in a simple manner, but very, very intelligent ones. It was actually one of those intelligently simple questions that cleared the path towards the most central issue of the entire interview: the immeasurable anger and the enormous fear concerning the media exposure given to Gonçalo Amaral, and his theories, and the attempt to assume the exclusive pro-activity in the (pseudo) search for Madeleine McCann.

The key question was the following: “What are your main fears of what could have happened to Madeleine?”

That question allowed for the entire strategy of dismantling the facts to be operated, through fallacies of various types (particularly argumentum ad ignorantium [1], argumentum ad autoritatum [2], modus tollens [3] and modus ponens [4] resulting from the illogical inversions in denying the consequent and affirming the antecedent).

If at the beginning they were afraid that their daughter had been abducted by a paedophile, and afterwards, molested and killed, due to the supposed absence of indications sustaining this thesis they concluded that one cannot conclude that anything bad happened to her. I ask the reader to forgive the redaction, particularly “concluded that one cannot conclude”, but this was the most effective way to demonstrate the last two fallacies that I mentioned. But, paradigmatically, note the another sentence “If nobody knows who took her, then we cannot conclude that she is dead” (argumentum ad ignorantium). Well, but as for facts that sustain the abduction theory, NOT A SINGLE ONE! There has never been one, there is none, and I believe there will never be one.

It became patent that the documentaries that were made by the McCanns were replies, in extremis, to Gonçalo Amaral’s documentary, which is inspired in his book “The Truth of the Lie”. If that is not the case, and if no other documentary is foreseen, it is not understandable for what other reasons the actors that were invited for the documentary, namely the actress that was to play Kate McCann, never appeared in the final version. AND FOR THIS, THERE IS NO FAIRY TALE THAT WILL WORK! THIS WAS AN UNCOORDINATED AND FAILED RESPONSE, A SENSELESS ONE! Despair, which is patent in the anger, that is not always contained, especially in Gerry McCann, led us to anticipate what came to be a reality: a lawsuit against Gonçalo Amaral.

Well, apart from recommending Duarte Levy’s and Paulo Reis’ most recent articles about this issue, allow me to advance a (new) old question.

The classic Anglo-Saxon intimidation strategy usually scares the weak in order to warn the strong. It was expected that the McCanns would sue one or another journalist or one or another blogger before suing Gonçalo Amaral. They didn’t do it!

I’ll return to this subject.

I finish for today, stating, just like I did in October 2007, MY ENTIRE SOLIDARITY WITH GONÇALO AMARAL! The Authority of Arguments shall win over the Arguments of Authority! History has taught us so…


source: Duarte Levy @ Wordpress, 19.05.2009

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[1] The argument from ignorance, also known as argumentum ad ignorantiam ("appeal to ignorance"), argument by lack of imagination, or negative evidence, is a logical fallacy in which it is claimed that a premise is true only because it has not been proven false, or is false only because it has not been proven true.

[2] An informal fallacy, in which reasoning derives merely from authority.

[3] In classical logic, modus tollens (or modus tollendo tollens) (Latin for "the way that denies by denying") has the following argument form:
If P, then Q.
¬Q
Therefore, ¬P.
It can also be referred to as denying the consequent.

[4] In classical logic, modus ponendo ponens (Latin for mode that affirms by affirming; often abbreviated to MP or modus ponens) is a valid, simple argument form sometimes referred to as affirming the antecedent or the law of detachment.
Modus ponens is a very common rule of inference, and takes the following form:
If P, then Q.
P.
Therefore, Q.

more on fallacies here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_fallacy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modus_tollens
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modus_tollens







9 comments:

  1. In the video at 2.56 McCann is quick to point out that there will be more presents for Madeleine after tonight (meaning, once the fucking gullable watch that fakementary the poor kid's room will be full of more toys sent in by the brain-dead and stupid).

    How can this guy McCann be so smug?

    I personally think he is not as educated as what people say he is. I don't know where people get this idea that this couple are smart. They are only protected and nothing intelligent about them at all.

    I hope McCann reads these blogs and the comments and I would love a response from either of their team or by them personally. I wonder why they haven't made any efforts to sue a blogger or a responder yet. What's wrong? Not enough money in it for them?

    Time's up, McCann. Mr Amaral is gonna open up your little world and expose to us all the truth in the lie.

    I am so looking forward to that day.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Paulo Sargento, brilliant as ever.
    I am looking forward to read the continuation.
    I see the UK newspapers , comments and blogger to speak about the Mccanns suing GA taking in count UK law. I do not know if it is simple ignorance or automatic arrogance.
    I am not an expert in law but i know Portuguese law and anglo saxon has some differences.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Excellent looking forward to the next part!

    Also I would be interested in the opinion of Paulo Sargento regarding the This Morning interview.

    Especially this:

    LOOK at GMcC's smirk @ 7.45 & 7.50 onwards when asked about GA regarding the suing!

    Youtube video with smirk: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EcAFO74U ... re=related

    ReplyDelete
  4. IMPORTANT!

    At 9.38 we clearly hear McCann say these words: "We've 'had' (then a pause) a special bond with Madeleine that we 'had' when she was born (then a blink and lick of the lips which clearly indicates a mistake being realized by the talker).

    How this couple get away with it is beyond me.

    I look forward to this supposed court case but somehow I believe they will back out and say they can't leave the kids or some lame excuse like that.

    This couple must surely be made accountable for the livelihoods of the Praia da Luz public who have lost so much. I would urge the people of PDL to sue the McCanns for loss of earnings and for tarnishing their excellent reputation that is being denied to continue.

    ReplyDelete
  5. IMO, the only reason the McCanns now seek to elevate Dr Amaral from their prescribed Nuisance status to See You In Court is because they're looking for someone to lash out at in defence of The Fund. They can't challenge the Portuguese Authorities who wrote it in black in white because they risk getting hauled back to Portugal to finish the business. But Dr Amaral - why not? What power, what authority does he hold?! Oh the cowards.......

    You see, McCann, even before September 2007 many people across the world had doubts about you. Serious doubts. And they haven't gone away. Nothing you have done or failed to do has done anything to allay people's 'fears' about you. See? All done by you, with or without Dr Goncalo Amaral.

    So why bother with the small fries? Go challenge the PJ and your own Leicestershire Police instead.

    I won't hold my breath.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Asking myself: The Smith family saw a man carrying a child.
    If it was NOT GM who was it than? Why has that person not come forward and had said: you are mistaken, it was me mr. so and so, inhabitant of PdL or so.
    And why does GM again and again scratching his ear, nose, mouth, cheek and looks downwards if he answers? Only question myself.

    ReplyDelete
  7. “The classic Anglo-Saxon intimidation strategy usually scares the weak in order to warn the strong. It was expected that the McCanns would sue one or another journalist or one or another blogger before suing Gonçalo Amaral. They didn’t do it!”

    Oh, come Mr. Sargento. Do you not realise that the classic Anglo-Saxon intimidation strategy is to bash the weak in order to avoid being bashed by the strong? Anyway, what has Scotch Gerry to do with anything Anglo-Saxon?

    The McCanns have done a whole pack of successful suing, in case you hadn’t noticed. They are addicted to it.

    Here is my own argumentum ad invidiam et ignorantiam:
    Any news from our Abbott and Costello retired coppers, now taking in the bracing air of the Algarve? Since their latest intervention, Spotty...(but I shouldn’t call him Spotty, should I - he is pockmarked, as in smallpox marked, and smallpox, as we all know, is bad. Had he a few fingers missing, he would be a leper too, which is worse).

    The selection of these two malfeasants shows the McCadaver genius at work. One of them, former Royal Ulster Constabulary, is well-placed to root out any Catholic chicanery. The other, former Merseyside (read Liverpool) Police, may well be, to preserve the balance of things, a Catholic. Unfortunately, two bigots don’t make a right, they make two retired cops pocketing tainted money while carefully looking the wrong way and perverting the course of justice (argumentum ad crumenam). And not without prior practice, I daresay. Good thinking, McCadaver. As a PR stunt, this is well stunted, and up to your previous form. Do I detect the hand of Creepy Clarrie in all this?

    But kindly note, gentlemen, the ‘disappearance’ of this child is not a ‘cold case’. There is nothing cold about this case, save the child.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Useful information? From the interview: we are informed, according to K.McCann, the abductor was a man - 'someone's son'.. or whatever.
    I heard somewhere, on this site perhaps, that the majority of child traffickers are women. Not all though, so the stereotype would fit.

    An an assertion of abduction without evidence: The 'twins beleive Madeleine was taken':

    It was Tony Blair (ex-British PM) who introduced the infection of affected speech 'you know..' to preface every assertion we were supposed to swallow as gospel truth. The McCanns have that infection, (use it perhaps 100 times - not counted), but to be fair so do many Labour party supporters, in their waffle. Conclusion the McCann's aren't serious, they are waffling.

    Evasive answers:
    Q. Why does he (Amacal) not want to find Madeleine?
    A. He's certainly not doing anything about it. we are.

    Mr McCann: Amacal's theories 'are not backed up by any evidence whatsoever'. A medical doctor is supposed to be able to weigh scientific evidence. This blank rejection of seriously strong evidence, reminiscent of doctors defending cigarrette manufacturers. But, in any case , Amacal's theories are 'ridiculous', according to McCann. I can only suppose that's because law enforcement agents are to believe that parents never tragically injure their children, in spite of any prior cases to the contrary.

    According to Mr McCann the only downside to visiting Pria da Luz again is the media frenzy, otherwise they have a lot of friends there - even ex-pats, and so it should have been a an even better time.
    That evades the truth of reception there, and the reasons for that reception.

    My conclusion: I do not think all the quesitons were prepared in advance, and so answers are interesting. The McCanns weren't appearing with a serious appeal, or merely to update us on their interesting lives, but waffled in a style I recognise: damage limitation. I suspect Mitchell grooms the McCann's not on their behalf, but on behalf of the whole corrupt Labour party leadership and their coterie. The McCann's are under their thumb.

    An terrible alternative scenario, more of a political conspiracy theory, as to the truth of the matter: the child died in the apartment. The McCann's are innocent of that, being used and framed (eventually) by the bent Labour Party leadership. One amongst their number, or an accomplice to that party killed the child and hid the body.
    Worth considering.

    ReplyDelete
  9. While the parents state that there is no proof of madeleine's death, albeit science may indicate otherwise.surely there is no proof that madeleine is alive?

    ReplyDelete