The story goes that when Katie Holmes split with her ex-boyfriend Chris Klein in March 2005, she may or may not have realized she was pregnant with his baby. She started dating Tom in April, 2005, and according to this tale, when Tom found out she was expecting, he not only didn't MIND, but he insisted on taking credit for the pregnancy. They abruptly got engaged in June 2005. Since the baby was scheduled to be born too soon into their relationship, Tom and Katie faked the birth date. She actually gave birth months EARLIER than the announced birth. She wore padding for the last few months after the REAL birth, and made sure she was photographed. In case you don't remember, Suri's announced April 18 birth was oddly undocumented - there were no hospital records or specifics. Where WAS Suri born? Tom and Katie didn't want their baby photographed because it would be apparent that Suri wasn't newborn.
After a few months it's not so easy to recognize a baby's exact age. Have you noticed that Suri has uniquely slanted eyes like Chris Klein? Plausible?
But despite what anyone says, I think this little girl looks like both her parents, and the Chris Klein thing is pushing it. And yes, it's true that even adopted children can look like their adoptive parents, so a resemblance doesn't necessarily mean she's his. But, in response to this latest theory, both Tom and Katie do in fact have slanted down eyes, and Chris Klein doesn't (I googled and checked!) - so it's a poor justification for a very far-fetched theory. I mean, if you're going to come up with a story, at least make it plausible.
I know Tom Cruise is barking what with all that Scientology business, but as long as he is a good father to the child and indeed wants to be the father, who cares whether or not she is biologically his? God knows enough men (and women) walk away from the responsibility, so why shoot the guy down for wanting to do a good thing?