Inconsistent Defence

"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."

~ Paulo Sargento (1)

Assertion without Evidence
We are informed, according to K.McCann, the abductor was a man - 'someone's son'.. or whatever.
Useful information? I heard somewhere, on www.joana-morais.blogspot.com perhaps, that the majority of child traffickers are women. Not all though, so the stereotype would fit. A weak 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.

Evasive answers:
Q. Why does he (Amacal) not want to find Madeleine?
A. He's certainly not doing anything about it (We are). And, Mr McCann again: 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 this year for publicity and a spoof re-construction of events of that fateful night two years earlier, was the media frenzy, otherwise they have a lot of friends there - even ex-pats, and so it should have been an even better time. That evades the truth of their unwelcome reception there, and the reasons for that.

My conclusion
I do not think all the questions were prepared in advance, and so answers are interesting. The McCanns weren't appearing with a serious public appeal, or merely to update us on their interesting lives, but waffled in a style I recognise: damage limitation. I suspect Mitchell, spokesperson and ex-Labour Party PR employee and now spokesperson for the McCann's, 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, 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 a bent Labour Party leadership. One amongst their number, or an accomplice to that party, killed the child and hid the body. This, at the time of the upcoming Lisbon Treaty.
Worth considering, for all it's worth. The interference of the Labour Party leadership in a judicial matter is more than worrying, and included direct intervention by Gordon Brown. The consequences of that interference led to an abrupt end to police enquiries and prosecution of the case, and remains to be explained. Answers to questions put to that leadership by the police, should be sought.

(1) Paulo Sargento is a Psychologist in Portugal, and anlyses various discourses concerned with the case.
His full analyis in full, 'The McCanns’ interview to SIC: Fallacies and more Fallacies or the antechamber to the Swan Song?' can be found here on Joana Morais' informative blog. Gonçalo Amaral was the leading Portuguese detective following Madeleine McCanne's dissapearance.