Madeline Mccan’s father a member of the Red Shoe Club?

[darkknight111]

https://mobile.twitter.com/jack_toale/s ... 4758077440

If this is indeed correct, then I have a horrible deduction about the source of those shoes…..Madeline Mccan. Meaning she was a sacrfice for the Mccans to get into “the club”.

Plus they are associates with known pedo Clement Freud.

Edit: Oops, duplicate post. My bad.

[Heisenberg123]

This picture comes from here:

https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/ ... y_n_333819

Tony Podesta Has A Party Pooper

https://img.huffingtonpost.com/asset/5b ... ormat=webp

Washington luminaries raised glasses in honor of lobbyist Tony Podesta, who celebrated his 65th birthday on Friday night with a party at the National Museum of Women in the Arts.

Roll Call, Politico, and the Examiner all covered the event, which was billed as a "Red Shoe Affair" -- per Podesta's fashion proclivities, guests were asked to wear red shoes.

(Podesta's red shoe thing goes back at least until 1993, when the Associated Press reported that he wore red hightops with a tuxedo to a pre-inaugural fundraiser because, he said, "I want to be comfortable standing around.")

Among those spotted at the birthday bash: House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius, and Project on Government Oversight's Adam Zagorin(!).

But a sourpuss lurks among the journos toasting Podesta in print: Bloomberg's Al Hunt, who writes that Tony and Heather Podesta "are raking in millions from the insurance and drug industries, tobacco companies and corporate interests fighting changes to labor laws or the overhaul of the student-loan program."

Those differences certainly aren't big enough to keep administration officials and Democratic leadership away from A Red Shoe Affair. Get with the party, Al Hunt!

Compare if it is similar to Gerry McCann from those years:

https://img.huffingtonpost.com/asset/5b ... ormat=webp

https://www.alamy.com/stock-photo-kate- ... 61195.html

Some other articles:

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/hes- ... h-birthday

Most attendees kept to the strict dress code, especially his colleagues who wore matching red loafers.

One associate gabbed to Yeas & Nays that their Giorgio Brutini shoes were purchased for the Podesta Group on Overstock.com with a price tag less than $100.

https://californiastemcellreport.blogsp ... d.html?m=1

I personally dont think thats him. Guy on Podesta pic is similar but little bit different? Gerry McCann visits around the world were well recorded and would be especially highlighted if he visited powerful lobbyist in the US.

But some connections are in fact there, highlighted in this post:

In this good quality picture it doesnt look like him anymore. Maybe similar.. Dates would help a lot.

https://preview.redd.it/hm2xftqh1od51.j ... 75909c129e

Potential ties between McCann and Podesta brothers circle:

https://searchvoat.co/v/pizzagate/2532072
https://searchvoat.co/v/pizzagate/2337405
https://searchvoat.co/v/pizzagate/1611153
https://searchvoat.co/v/pizzagate/1722428
https://searchvoat.co/v/pizzagate/1688257

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/articl ... Canns.html

It's three months since Maddy vanished and her parents are grieving in very different ways. He's thinking about moving back to Britain and starting to rebuild their lives. She's still lost in despair and cannot bear to leave Portugal
On Wednesday evening, Gerry McCann flew back to Portugal after a hectic three day trip to Washington DC - the latest and farthest-flung staging post on his mission to champion the cause of abducted children and maximise publicity for his missing daughter, Madeleine.

Do we have a date of Tony Podesta red shoe club pic? If we find it that would help a lot.

https://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/Nigel/id209.htm

Richard Branson pops up very fast above.. Hes connected with Epstein and Podesta circles..

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nbcnew ... na20807215

Richard Branson helps McCanns clear name
Richard Branson, chairman of Virgin Group, pledged $200,000 on Sunday to help the British couple declared suspects in the disappearance of their young daughter to clear their name, a spokeswoman said.

As we remember he hosted pedo NXVIM cult members on his island which is not far from Epstein island.

In bigger context some ties here:

viewtopic.php?f=18&t=9609

Freud ties in bigger context here:

viewtopic.php?p=27740#p27740

And dont forget creepy Italian Gio Forbice posts about human skin shoes predating Pizzagate, Tony Podesta and James Alefantis are very much linked in Italy, perhaps they could be linked to high circles of aristocracy and old dynasties (like their common friend Michael Louis Giacalone)


viewtopic.php?f=16&t=8469

viewtopic.php?p=27042#p27042

viewtopic.php?p=27245#p27245

viewtopic.php?p=27419#p27419

Source: viewtopic.php?p=28980#p28980

If we only could confirm this:

https://www.thelastamericanvagabond.com ... -revealed/

Confirmed FBI Anon Information
One of our FBI insiders can confirmed the Intelligence community indicates John and Tony Podesta were in Praia da Luz, Portugal on May 3rd 2007– the day Madeleine McCann vanished.

The Podesta brothers were staying with a friend named “Clem.” Clement Freud, the grandson of psychopathology sex expert Dr. Sigmund Freud, who was known to be a pedophile. This is a quote from our insider: “Of greater interest is that fact that Freud owned a villa in Praia da Luz.”

It was then revealed that Clement Freud’s villa in which the Podesta Brothers were staying, was in fact only a third of a mile from the exact location from which Madeleine was taken:

And while this Freud connection to McCann is confirmed - Podesta brothers visit and connection to Freud not really [at least what we have according to public information]

https://www.thelastamericanvagabond.com ... f-home.jpg

https://archive.ph/1gFdQ

Police warned of Clement Freud's Madeleine McCann connection 'did nothing', victim claims
Rape victim Vicky Hayes reported concerns to police forces two years ago

Police investigating the disappearance of Madeleine McCann did nothing after being made aware of paedophile Sir Clement Freud's connection to the case, one of his victims has claimed.
Vicky Hayes, 64, who was groomed and raped by Mr Freud as a teenager, said she felt “very uneasy” after discovering that the former politician had befriended the McCann family and cooked for them at his holiday home in Praia da Luz, Portugal.
Ms Hayes told ITV News: "I read Kate McCann's book and was immediately upset and anxious that Clement Freud had invited the McCanns to his home.

"He was a private man, not the type to suddenly befriend a couple who had intense media attention. It really jarred with me, left me feeling very uneasy. He had a home in Praia da Luz, but why invite them and cook for them?
"Nobody else would have thought Freud capable of abuse and rape but he did it to me. He was capable of anything."
Ms Hayes says she reported her concerns to the local police force in Suffolk, and her son wrote to the Metropolitan Police, yet they received no response.
Ms Hayes said: "I'm angry the police were dismissive of my information.

"I have a six-year-old granddaughter, a young girl like Madeleine. If you have a something you feel needs to be looked at you have to tell someone. That's what I did. That's why I contacted the police, when I read Kate McCann’s account, I wanted the detectives to know what I knew about Clement Freud.
"My purpose was for officers to investigate why he invited them. It needs investigating if Freud had any involvement or knew anything."
Ms Freud was in the UK at the time of Ms McCann’s disappearance in May 2007.

Kate McCann wrote in her book, Madeleine, of how Mr Freud contacted the family two months after the three-year-old disappeared and invited them for dinner at his villa close by from their Ocean Club apartment. He remained in touch and invited them over a second time weeks later.
Ms Hayes contacted ITV after reading newspaper reports of Mr Freud's paedophilia, which form the subject of an ITV Exposure documentary tonight.
In the documentary, two other women talk of how Mr Freud abused them over a period spanning four decades.

Mr Freud's widow, Jill Freud, 89, said in a statement she was “deeply saddened and profoundly sorry for what has happened to these women” after the ITV documentary's revelations.
Yesterday it emerged that there could be many more victims of abuse at the hands of Freud.
Craig Murray, a former British ambassador to Uzbekistan, told the Independent he had been contact by several people alleging further instances of abuse.
Mr Murray, who says there must now be serious questions asked over whether senior political figures knew of his behaiour, said: “I have had all kinds of people contacting me, telling me that they knew about this behaviour – not victims, but people who were told about it, people who knew victims.
“I have been contacted by seven people. I don’t have concrete intelligence, but it seems there are a lot of claims that there is more stuff out there.”
“The same as with Jimmy Savile,” he added, “This stuff comes pouring out once the gates are opened.”
A spokesperson for the Metropolitan Police said in a statement: "Following the transmission of the documentary this evening (15 June), the MPS will make an assessment of the allegations to ensure the safeguarding of anyone at risk, and also consider if any criminal investigation is required to bring any living persons to justice."

[MartinTimothy1]

I have removed @MartinTimothy1's post at viewtopic.php?p=30436#p30436

The rules have changed recently.

> No posting child pornography or sexually suggestive content involving minors

"Sexually suggestive" is interpreted broadly. For example, images posted in the context of child sex offences are forbidden, even if the images would be considered innocent if presented without context.

This is @MartinTimothy1's first and only warning. Users will be banned if they continue to post sexually suggestive images of children.

Edit: MartinTimothy1

[Savesequim]

I have removed @MartinTimothy1's post at viewtopic.php?p=30436#p30436

The rules have changed recently.

> No posting child pornography or sexually suggestive content involving minors

"Sexually suggestive" is interpreted broadly. For example, images posted in the context of child sex offences are forbidden, even if the images would be considered innocent if presented without context.

This is @MartinTimothy1's first and only warning. Users will be banned if they continue to post sexually suggestive images of children.

Edit: MartinTimothy1

Interesting, may I ask a little more detail/clarification as to what the content of the photo was? Was it just a photo of madelaine?

"images posted in the context of child sex offences" I assume you mean images of children. So images of victims of these crimes are now disallowed, regardless of the intent of the poster?

I know rule implementation is a headache, but I can already see this being used to attack your crediblity.

[SearchVoat]

Interesting, may I ask a little more detail/clarification as to what the content of the photo was? Was it just a photo of madelaine?

In this case, no, it was a montage of provocatively posed and semi-dressed children, disgusting stuff.

"images posted in the context of child sex offences" I assume you mean images of children. So images of victims of these crimes are now disallowed, regardless of the intent of the poster?

Yes. A line has to be drawn somewhere. I think this is the most defensible place to draw it.

No one is ever able to discern the true intent of a poster.

I know rule implementation is a headache, but I can already see this being used to attack your crediblity.

I couldn't give a shit about my credibility. I do what I think is right.

[Savesequim]

Interesting, may I ask a little more detail/clarification as to what the content of the photo was? Was it just a photo of madelaine?

In this case, no, it was a montage of provocatively posed and semi-dressed children, disgusting stuff.

"images posted in the context of child sex offences" I assume you mean images of children. So images of victims of these crimes are now disallowed, regardless of the intent of the poster?

Yes. A line has to be drawn somewhere. I think this is the most defensible place to draw it.

No one is ever able to discern the true intent of a poster.

I know rule implementation is a headache, but I can already see this being used to attack your crediblity.

I couldn't give a shit about my credibility. I do what I think is right.

I have no problem with it, in general I don't think any kids photos should be posted on the internet (especially parents on social media)

Interesting, user hasn't been active on searchvoat afaik, wondering if its a b4p alt. OG voater too

[SearchVoat]

Interesting, user hasn't been active on searchvoat afaik, wondering if its a b4p alt. OG voater too

search.php?author_id=149142&sr=posts

[Savesequim]

Interesting, user hasn't been active on searchvoat afaik, wondering if its a b4p alt. OG voater too

search.php?author_id=149142&sr=posts

ahh mt vs mt1.

TY.

[MartinTimothy1]

I have removed @MartinTimothy1's post at viewtopic.php?p=30436#p30436

The rules have changed recently.

> No posting child pornography or sexually suggestive content involving minors

"Sexually suggestive" is interpreted broadly. For example, images posted in the context of child sex offences are forbidden, even if the images would be considered innocent if presented without context.

This is @MartinTimothy1's first and only warning. Users will be banned if they continue to post sexually suggestive images of children.

Edit: MartinTimothy1

Interesting, may I ask a little more detail/clarification as to what the content of the photo was? Was it just a photo of madelaine?

"images posted in the context of child sex offences" I assume you mean images of children. So images of victims of these crimes are now disallowed, regardless of the intent of the poster?

I know rule implementation is a headache, but I can already see this being used to attack your crediblity.

It wasn't a photo, it was a collection of many, many photos, over 25 I imagine, with a girl that looks like Madeline (various ages though) in suggestive poses, suggestive clothing and one with a suggestive pose while she's naked (very very young). The person posting it was already known on old Voat and how they like these types of exploitative photos of a young girl that they claim is Madeleine. This same series of photos was taken off PG in the past and more recently a single photo that was posted today for the third time was removed for the 2nd time this year. edit: it was in 2021 that the photos had been removed last and a single photo posted again

Clearly the user is obsessed with the looks of Madeleine McCann at a very young age (within mostly sexually suggestive 'modeling' photos), via a girl that also has photos when she's older (8 or 9?). It's creepy how this user can't stop posting the same pictures. imho

Old Voat archives aren't as good as I thought, it seems to me that a lot of research/commentary on the McCann case is gone. Edit 2: My mistake, the checkbox for 'voat' wasn't checked, I didn't realize SV archives included other sites now. Oops LOL