TomKat's baby Suri's birth was reported to be 4/18/06 but insiders say she was born 10 days earlier. Why?

Question

I was notified of the birth of Tom & Katie's baby on April 8, 2006 but nothing was published til much later and all of those publications stated that baby Suri was born on April 18th. Also the early a.m. arrival and short duration of Katie's stay in the hospital are very suspect!! Why would either celebrity further risk more damage to their reputation by behaving in such a covert way? If privacy is what they want for their child why not remain quiet and allow that beautiful experience to be shared by close family and friends like the rest of the world? Many other celebrities have been able to achieve this.

Answer 1

BECAUSE THEY HAD TO WAIT FOR THE SPACESHIP TO DELIVER HER TO EARTH BEFORE THEY COULD TELL THE WORLD.

Answer 2

People are starting rumors that she had her child earlier because she was very fat about 8 days before she delivered, then had no belly. People say it the date is off by as much as 3 months (you know how people get). They suspect that either 1. she was prego before hooking up with Tom (she was linked to Josh Hartnett for like a minute before Tom), 2. He impregnated her before they were engaged thus going against both of their religions. EIther way, who knows, but these rumors are being fueled because nobody has yet to see baby Suri.

Answer 3

Well if i remember hearing correctly, they had said in the press that they might give birth at home. That was under a bit of scrutiny because it was deemed as more dangerous behavior on Tom Cruises' part. So perhaps they did have the baby at home and then staged a hospital visit to make it look as though they had the baby there instead.

Answer 4

They probably didn't tell the public because they like their privacy and dont want nosy ppl poking their nose into such a personal event

Answer 5

maybe the baby is horribly deformed, that would explain why nobody has seen the baby