The TomKat/Suri Conspiracy Timeline

It's been 86 days since the birth of Suri Cruise -- and about a split-second since the latest conspiracy theory about Hollywood's most elusive baby.

New rumors surface by the hour -- that Tom and Katie are holding out for a better magazine photo deal, that Scientology is involved in the mystery, that Suri doesn't even exist!

So what has fueled the rumors? TMZ has created a timeline that may explain why Suri is becoming a national obsession.


Take a look at these pictures. On March 25, Katie, who was eight months pregnant at the time, looked ginormous. But then, on April 5, 13 days before she gave birth, Katie seemed to shrink.

And there's more.




We have video of Katie shopping at Barney's in Beverly Hills just days before her delivery. Katie spent hours inside on a wild shopping spree, and there's buzz that one of the items she purchased was a pair of size 26 Chip and Pepper jeans (which translate to a size 2) -- a bit odd for someone who had a long way to go to regain her figure.

And, of course, there was the never-ending public appearances by TomKat. The paparazzi followed them continent by continent, as the couple was bursting with joy over their impending arrival. But everything changed on April 18, with the birth of Suri.

These are the only images we could find of Katie post-pregnancy. And, of course, zilch on Suri.

And, as TMZ first reported, there are items of curiosity on Suri's birth certificate.

So you ask, why the conspiracy theories? As they say, a picture is worth a thousand words.

Add to: My AOL, MyYahoo, Google, Bloglines
Sign up for:
AOL Alerts

Tags: Katie Holmes, KatieHolmes, Suri Cruise, SuriCruise, Tom Cruise, TomCruise, Tomkat

Relevant Posts

Reader Comments

(Page 6 of 156) Previous 15 Comments | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | Most Recent | Next 15 Comments

76. "14. Everything TMZ.com has given us would point to a conspiracy, however... how can you deny this? "

Why would a Hollywood actress show those nasty, supposedly real scars unless she wanted people to take photos of them? She's used to be in public with photographers....

And why would a woman want photos taken?

Maybe for the same reason she had photos taken of her in a nursing bra (in the down position with a silk blouse) . . . it's all to fool the public.

Posted at 12:01AM on Jul 13th 2006 by Prophetess Juanita "Jazz Hands" Bynum

77. In regards to MLC pointing out stretch marks, you do not have to get pregnant to have stretch marks. I've got them & I never had a child. It can happen if you gain & loose weight. It can also be genetic, just like people aging & wrinkling younger than others. It's just a "scarring" of the skin so to speak. It mean's nada. Heck even some men I know have stretch marks! Were they knocked up as well?

Ya this whole thing smells like yesterday's fish. If they were planning not to bring the child out, I think we would have heard about it. They (TOM!) were so vocal about their plans, love, etc. that I was gagging on it all. We heard about the "silent birth", why not about a "reason" for not seeing the child? We heard all about the sonogram machine, why not seeing an actual picture of Suri or a copy of the sonogram? We heard about all the confusion over what her name may mean, why haven't we ever seen an out-of-focus, grainy pic taken from some great distance?

This gal ain't buying the whole thing. I think I'd rather try to buy a bridge in Brooklyn!

Posted at 12:01AM on Jul 13th 2006 by G L Hedlund

78. I hate Tom Cruise. With three oldr brothers in Scientology for the past twenty some years, nothing surprises me about why baby, Suri, is not being shown to the public. Scientology is a BIG secretive, money hungry, egotistical power cult. They believe everyone who is not a Scientologist is a surpressive person (SP) and mentally disturbed. Maybe Tommy thinks the public may harm Suri's fragilebrain before she is brainwashed in the Scientology doctrine.

Posted at 12:09AM on Jul 13th 2006 by Mark

79. Everything is about this is strange... the in-your-faceness, then nothing, the side by side photos etc but to me more important than the size 2 jeans purchase is, having had two kids myself, there is NO WAY I could shop for shoes, especially not in the last two months - who wants to buy $500 shoes you can't try on. I mean you can on the internet but why go to the trouble of going out to obviously be photographed etc etc hmmmmm.

Posted at 12:18AM on Jul 13th 2006 by Feebee

80. Please stop harassing this poor girl. All women go through this change in their body especially the last 3 months. And for all these men reporters attack her and her baby is just wrong! Leave Katie along. Her furture husband may be odd but it is her first baby. All mothers are protective of their children and it would only make sense for them to take care of the baby and other kids. Leave them along.

Posted at 12:21AM on Jul 13th 2006 by pdl

81. #28:

No, you can tell she is flipping off the paparazzi. You can see her finger (obviously the middle one) in the bottom of her sleeve. No way she has her arm in her shirt, and even if she did have the other one, it wouldn't look so round. There would be an arm bump of some sort.

Posted at 12:40AM on Jul 13th 2006 by Blah

82. #28-

Obviously her arm is not in her shirt because she is flipping off the photogs. And in another pic on Hollywoodrag (I just looked to confirm dates) her other arm is by her side as well, still flipping off the photogs.

And btw, the dates are correct. Her larger belly is on March 25 and the other one April 5.

Posted at 12:47AM on Jul 13th 2006 by Blah

83. why bring the kid out? disturb suri, expose her?.. Just quietly take pictures of her at home.. duh!!

Posted at 12:47AM on Jul 13th 2006 by dmumsie

84. Hullo anyone who has ever been pregnant - whats the first thing that happens? Yyour freakin boobs get huge! Katie Holmes's boobs stay exactly the same size...check it

Posted at 12:51AM on Jul 13th 2006 by amy

85. Katie is clearly pregnant on March 25th. The baby has dropped and she has the posture normal for that time. If the other two pictures were taken after March 25th, then something is clearly wrong. She does not walk or stand like a woman ready to deliver in those photos.
Why would they want us to think she was still preggers?

Posted at 12:56AM on Jul 13th 2006 by ScubaGirl

86. I think one thing that's weird is that Chris Klein said that while he and Katie were dating for those 5 years they "never had sex", but when she meets Tom she gets pregnant by him with in months... Somebodys lying here... This is the strangest couple/story...

Posted at 1:01AM on Jul 13th 2006 by SuriNotTom's

87. The photos speak for themself. I have two kids and I don't recall getting smaller as the months went on like it seems Katie did. But I can't help thinking about a few things. No. 1, wasn't there a rumor that Tom couldn't have children and that's why he and Nicole adopted. No. 2, it seems to me that if there wasn't actually a "baby" don't you think that the older two children would have already told Nicole and she would take them away from Tom because he's a psycho. Or maybe she is just too caught up in her own new marriage to care. No. 3, I think Tom and Katie have a deal that if she goes along with this charade (sp) he will make her a big star. No. 4, what new mother doesn't sign their own child's birth certificate. There is no way in hell I would let a friend sign for me. Seems like he is going to ALOT of trouble to prove that he is not gay.

Posted at 1:01AM on Jul 13th 2006 by Penny

88. The two side by side pictures don't bother me because of the way Katie is standing in the first picture. She has her back really swayed so it makes her belly stick out more. The size 2 jeans could be for a sister or friend or for later.

Cruise has gotten so weird that it is hard to say what he is trying to pull off. There is no reason for "a friend" to fill out a birth certificate. You can take the certificate home and fill it out and send it in. I don't think that certificate is real. I just wonder if something happened to the baby after she was born and she isn't even living now.

It would be pretty bogus on Tom's part to make a baby up. Maybe he is keeping her hidden for attention though as that is something that he seems to have a need for. Maybe he likes knowing that everyone is wondering if she is real and why they don't show a picture of her. At least it keeps Tiny Tom's name in the mags. He is so Mental.

Posted at 1:06AM on Jul 13th 2006 by Barbara

89. Um, did anyone notice Katie's hand in the March 25 pick?
I guess you can't really blame her for flipping the paparazzi off, though.

Posted at 1:08AM on Jul 13th 2006 by marie

90. Yup Yup #3 (Hippo)
That was the very first thing i thought watching the video, she moved with such ease while shopping no waddle which im sure most of us who have been there know only too well the waddle....and when she was sitting in chair she move really easy which is almost impossible at that stage of pregonisss (lol) most of us need a crane to get us out of the sitting position...and i only gain 23 lbs ( on a 5 ft frame of normal weight of 105). Pretty creepy the whole thing, and the 5 min public bathroom stunt (whatever they were doing in there...lol) they wouldnt be if she had really just had a baby :)

Posted at 1:09AM on Jul 13th 2006 by ShopzShopz

Previous 15 Comments | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | Most Recent | Next 15 Comments