Controversy over baby Suri |
| Posted by: hazel_dragoneye | | Everyone has been talking about baby Suri, the daughter of Tom Cruise and Katie Holmes. They all wonder whether if she's real or not. Look at this article about Suri's birth certificate:
This article was seen on Teddy and Moo's celebrity gossip page.
(Very interesting)
| quote: |
The same nurse who signed the birth certificate for Tom Cruise’s daughter Suri also signed the birth certificate for Brooke Shields’ daughter Grier, but there’s an interesting discrepancy.
Both babies were born on April 18 at St. John’s Hospital in Santa Monica. Anne Heffernan is the registered nurse who signed both birth certificates. As TMZ reported Monday, Heffernan, who never saw Suri, signed her birth certificate. A hospital rep says Heffernan is authorized to sign when a doctor is not available.
On the Suri Cruise certificate, Heffernan’s license number is G48079. On the Grier Henchy certificate, Heffernan’s license number is different — G068399. TMZ checked with the California Board of Registered Nursing and we were told Heffernan’s license number didn’t match either of the birth certificates. A Board rep told TMZ Hefferman’s license number is 317058.
And it gets more interesting. The Board of Registered Nursing told TMZ the license number on Grier’s certificate comes back to a Dorothy Rork. The license number on Suri’s birth certificate is a mystery. There is no name attached to that license number.
By the way, unlike Suri’s birth certificate, Brooke Shields signed the one for her daughter. Someone listed as “Friend” signed the certificate for Suri.
Also, the hospital’s policy is to file birth certificates with L.A. County within 10 days of birth. In the case of Suri, it took 20 days to file, in part because the “friend” didn’t sign for 16 days. In Grier’s case, Brooke herself signed two days after her birth and the certificate was filed nine days after the baby was born.
TMZ placed multiple calls to St. John’s. So far, no comment |
.-tmz.com | | Reply To this Message
|
| Posted by: Lawless | | You know what... that's sick. I didn't even chuckle when I saw it. | | Reply To this Message
|
| Posted by: hazel_dragoneye | | We can only wonder if this baby does actually exists. I wonder what that phrase, Informational, not a valid document to establish identity mean anyway? Its disgusting that they are carrying this fantasy out. | | Reply To this Message
|
| Posted by: Lawless | | Well, I have no idea that they ARE carrying out a fantasy. Maybe they are... maybe they aren't. Do YOU know this, for a fact? I guess that we will find out, at some point. But, I'm definately not losing sleep over this. | | Reply To this Message
|
| Posted by: fuscia | | I do find it odd that only fellow scientologists have sighted Suri, yet Katies family has not seen the baby. | | Reply To this Message
|
| Posted by: Lawless | | That's pretty sad, in my opinion! And therefore, it makes it all that much more unbelievable. I mean, after all, who would want their own family to see their baby? | | Reply To this Message
|
| Posted by: gaboman | | Is her family supportive of her having a baby out of wedlock? As I remember it, they're pretty devoutly Catholic... perhaps Katie herself doesn't wish them to be anywhere around her baby because of their negative attitudes to the whole thing.
I don't know why everyone thinks it's a hoax... that's just silly-talk. | | Reply To this Message
|
| Posted by: Dreamzwalker | |
wow - that does look like a scientology baby - looks like cruise got rid of his negative emotions through the E - meter but his sperm sure as hell didn't
| | Reply To this Message
|
Actors & Actresses Forum: Controversy over baby Suri
|
