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 , argumentum ad autoritatum , modus tollens  and modus ponens  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
 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.
 An informal fallacy, in which reasoning derives merely from authority.
 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.
It can also be referred to as denying the consequent.
 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.
more on fallacies here: