Home Celebrity Exclusive: Katie Holmes Fires Publicist, Returns to Pre- Tom Cruise Agency

Exclusive: I’m told Katie Holmes has fired her publicist, the very good Ina Trecoikas, and has returned to Nancy Ryder, Leslie Sloane and BWR after seven years. Amazing stuff! This is a clear signal that Holmes is repudiating her last seven years. More to come…Radaronline.com is reporting that Katie will retain primary custody of Suri. But my emails to Cruise’s publicist regarding the subject have gone unanswered…also whether Scientology was cause of the rift…

Rewind: I met Katie Holmes on April 4, 2005 on the opening night of “Steel Magnolias” on Broadway. She was there to support her friend, Rebecca Gayheart. At the intermission, Katie and I discussed the fact that she’d moved to New York, was excited to do theater and indie films. The world was her oyster. Two weeks later, she turned up in Rome, in love with Tom Cruise.

According to her reps, she’d gone to Los Angeles to interview for “Mission: Impossible 3.” “We never heard from her again,” the rep said. In short order, Holmes fired publicist Leslie Sloane. No one she knew could explain what had happened. Between April 11 and the 27th, there was no record of what happened to her. http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,160192,00.html. Once she was with Cruise, she was never out of his sight.

Two years later, after she’d married Cruise, had Suri, and was mostly off the radar, Holmes materialized at a Giorgio Armani fashion show held at Ron Burkle’s estate in Hollywood. She looked dazed when I approached her and said, “Do you remember me? You disappeared.” She replied, “I fell in love.” Immediately, Tom’s sister and mother came between us physically, and Katie’s Scientology minders appeared as well. She was being watched closely. For most of the first year, she was followed everywhere by Jessica Feschbach. Her family had given millions to Scientology. http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,162082,00.html

The best example of all this was a frightening interview with Holmes the August 2005 W Magazine by Rob Haskell. Feshbach answered Holmes’s questions for her, and said to the actress of Cruise–in front of Haskell–” you adore him.” Not any more. http://www.wmagazine.com/celebrities/archive/katie_holmes?currentPage=2

10 replies to this post
  1. All the evidence outlined in this article does lead to KH being mind effed into being with TC. Those Scientology pple are nuts. I think most religions are a little crazy and want to control pple but Scientology takes it to another level. DEF a cult!

  2. Boy, talk about a slant to writing…and, sorry, but I don’t think the world of acting was every KH’s oyster. She was a TV star in hit series ten years ago. Her marriage to TC made her much more high profile and able to pick projects to which she otherwise would not have had access. Think probably at the beginning she was in love. Now, she will be the rich ex-wife who can pretty much do as she wants. TC may have had a plan for her but she may have had a plan for TC, too. KH not the naive, mid-controlled waif presented in this very subjective piece.

  3. @spike Nice try, but people will draw their own (obvious) conclusions here based on the facts, not your generalities. Trying to give scientology credibility by associating it with people with “religious beliefs” is weak. This is all about saving Suri from being raised as a scientologist. Either you’re a scientologist yourself or you’re not very perceptive or plain dumb.

  4. Of course Spike your assuming that one considers Scientology an actual religion, and not a money-grubbing cult that separates gullible people from their money.

  5. A Classic Dominator relationship (read The Freedom Programme), she’s best rid of that psychotic snake-in-a-suit, also read “The Psycopath Test” and “Snakes In Suits”

  6. Spike,
    Unfair. It’s a legitimate question. You infer from the article the author is interested in their “religious beliefs.” I infer he is interested in level of control Katie’s “Scientology minders” may or may not have tried to exert over her. That is quite distinct from belief. The author is suggesting the problem is the controlling aspect of the organization rather than the religion of the church. This is not bigotry. A cooler rereading of the article may assuage your concerns. Unless you are overly sensitive to the issues of control he raises, too.

  7. Sure Spike, you must be right – she’s no longer willing to fake being in love with a gay man anymore as a husband … maybe he goes to the same massage spas as other gay Scientologists … or is that where members meet? Nothing wrong with it or is it?

  8. You’re blowing this out of all proportion and trying to link their relationship to Scientology somehow because of some bigoted hidden agenda. People’s romantic get-togethers, as well as their breakups, stem from motivations of all kinds, completely unrelated to their religious beliefs. Here’s a simple test: When a couple with mainstream religious beliefs breaks up, do you take a magnifying glass to how their religious beliefs, either same or divergent, might have caused difficulties in their marriage. No? Then, just admit it, you’re just masking your religious bigotry in this article.

Leave a Reply

Print This Post Print This Post