<![CDATA[Gawker: defamer, clamming up]]> http://tags.gawker.com/assets/base/img/thumbs140x140/gawker.com.png <![CDATA[Gawker: defamer, clamming up]]> http://gawker.com/tag/defamer/clammingup http://gawker.com/tag/defamer/clammingup <![CDATA[Who's To Blame For Katie Holmes's Mysterious Knee Bruises?]]> While other well-photographed actresses might don a pair of pants to go out if their knees were covered in bruises, Kate Holmes is of a different breed. Not only did Holmes attend a performance of August: Osage County with black-and-blue welts studding her bare legs, she did it while leggings were surely close at hand. Are the bruises the result of a suddenly aggressive Suri, a painful rehearsal for Katie's Broadway debut, or a niacin-cleansing ritual gone awry? The Daily Mail takes us inside the scene:

Katie Holmes shocked onlookers by revealing huge black-and-blue bruises on her legs last night.

The actress smiled at waiting photographers, but her navy shift dress revealed the painful-looking injuries.

Despite the late hour, the wife of actor Tom Cruise accessorised her simple outfit with a pair of oversized designer shades.

Here's a theory: perhaps husband Tom Cruise finally tired of lending Holmes his own jeans. In the knock-down, drag-out fight that ensued for possession of the rolled-up denims, Holmes walked away pantsless, with the wounds to show for it. Lesson learned, Katie: when Tom says, "Take a big step back, and literally FUCK YOUR OWN FACE," he ain't playin'.

[Photo Credit: Splash News]

]]> http://gawker.com/index.php?op=postcommentfeed&postId=5042709&view=rss&microfeed=true