FL Woman LIED about Child Sex Doll using her Daughter's Likeness

A few days ago, there was a story that broke out of Miami, FL in which a woman, “Terri”, claimed that she had found a doll on Amazon which was made using the likeness of her 8-year-old-daughter, referred to as “Kat”. This story has made headlines and is re-invigorating public fervor against the controversial dolls, and is igniting what can only be described as a “moral panic”. So much so that US. Rep. Vern Buchanan has released a statement claiming that he will re-introduce the “CREEPER Act” at the start of the next legislative session “assuming he is re-elected”.

Though, after conducting research (by which I simply reverse-image-searched the image of the doll provided by the press and looked at listings from websites and retailers advertising or selling the doll), I’ve now come to the conclusion that the doll is NOT a blatant representation of her daughter’s likeness, but a factory-molded standard template that’s been on the doll market since late 2018.
The listings I’ve found all have publication dates from early 2019.

I urge everyone reading this to do your own research on this and come to the right conclusions.

And after reviewing the contents of several articles talking about the situation, I’ve come to the conclusion that “Terri” is exploiting her daughter in order to push a false narrative at the deliberate expense of logic, reason, and basic ethics. In an article published by Daily Mail, she claims that the clothing, pose, haircut, and even “stuffed toy” that her daughter is posed with are identical to what is depicted in the listing photo of the doll. This is patently false, and can easily be verified by simply looking at the two images. You can even see the faces are different, with the doll’s face clearly being that of a standard “doll” face and not that of “Kat”.



Anything by the Daily Mail should be automatically considered Fake News.


Soon: Rapist / Molester arrested. Happens to own Child Sex Doll. Media grinds on it.

I hope there are rebuttals at the ready, because it always follows that pattern. Even Japan pushed to ban lolicon at one time, because one of these people supposedly had some pieces in their possession. The only reason they backed down was because this later turned out to be false.

This is all ridiculous in the same vein as, rapist discovered to have been using Pornhub, Pornhub needs to be shutdown and the owners branded as sex offenders. It isn’t that shocking a rapist would be looking at pornography which they have an interest in. It doesn’t mean the pornography is controlling them.


What are the chances of someone just happening upon the section / site with the child sex dolls, just happening upon a doll which looks coincidentially similar, and it just happening to resemble a very specific photograph which just so happens to belong to her daughter? The odds of winning the lottery would be higher.

It is more likely she discovered sex dolls in a news articles, decided she hated them, decided she wanted media attention (and perhaps file her own ambulance chasing lawsuit to try to skim the doll manufacturer for cash), really dug for a doll which looked vaguely similar, bought props for the doll, posed the daughter, and snapped a photograph.


I don’t know and honestly I don’t care. What this woman is doing is illegal and immoral.

It doesn’t take a degree in journalism to know how to use Google and reverse-image-search the images of the doll provided by the NBC affiliate and find listings for it, using that same image, as far back as January 2019. I don’t know when that image of her daughter came about, but I sure as hell couldn’t find it anywhere up on Google, Bing, Yahoo, or any other search engine. So I honestly have no idea how it could have fallen into the hands of people making and marketing love dolls who are based in China.

The entire story stunk from the get-go. And the fact that the news media from FL hasn’t corrected their false information is both depressing and infuriating. I implore everyone reading this to do your research on this and reach out to the news team with your findings.


Since I was asked by Chie to do some of the research into the situation on my own, I’ve decided to publish my result in here publicly, sadly, I didn’t found anything Chie wouldn’t be already aware of, but at least I do confirm that he is honest about his findings.

Since Chie already searched through Google Bing and Yahoo, I will only add Yandex and TinEye into the list, the results are the same on these three.

A reverse image search of the photo of the girl alone returns this on TinEye:

And these results on Yandex:

All photos of this girl that have been found are the photos that have both the girl and the doll. No search engine was able to find the photo of a girl alone, which means, that it’s not publicly available, and the only copies of this photo were made after the discovery of the doll, so no one had the opportunity to base the doll on the girl unless this photo was made by someone in the girl environment and sent to the company directly with that exact purpose.

It also means that the news sites didn’t found this photo. Someone has given it to them. Someone who had made this photo, or someone who had access to private places where this photo has been stored. The only person who meets this criterion is the mother of the girl, but only because we don’t know the exact circumstances of how this situation was going on, so for now, she is only a suspect. She was the one that created the story, contacted the media and she has an ability to make such photos of her daughter.

The first entry of this image usage was recorded on September 3, 2020. One day after the initial story came out.

The Yandex search returns following images that his algorithm classified as “similar”:

As seen, the algorithm has shown photos of other dolls and of young-looking adult Asian women.

One particular photo took my attention, a photo of an Instagram model named Yami Hadaka, here is a small comparison:

This is the source of the photo: https://www.instagram.com/p/BpwhqhSlQ_u/?utm_source=ig_embed

This photo was added Nov 4, 2018:

One important thing to add, is that she is most likely from China or Japan (the country it was produced, the country it was sold from and Japanese was the ethnicity the doll supposed to represent based on descriptions of it on sites that sell it), she has a huge following of 1.3 m followers, and has a work email, which means she most likely is open to selling her services as a photo model:

Trying to find information about her age, I have found this:

It does align with her Twitter information:

Meaning her age when the photo was added was 21 years, 4 months and 10 days. A legal adult woman by any country standards.

Searching for the photo of the doll, and I did use an original photo (which I got from the second result) in TinEye resulted only with 2 entries, that aren’t the photo from the news:

Using Yandex I had more luck localizing more shops that sold this doll:

I find it curious that nothing from Amazon was found, and instead, the only big platform for selling item was Alibaba. This link doesn’t show the product, but the photo was indexed by the engine. If Amazon were to sell that doll, shouldn’t reverse image search engines also store the information about it even after the product is removed, just like in this case?

On this site, there is the information:

Which means “Creation time 2019-06-04”.

This site:

Has the following information:

Which means “Creation time 2019-09-06”

This site:

Has no information about creation date, Wayback machine has the oldest saved entry dated 13 Aug 2020:

Same situation with this site:

And this site, but with a date 20 Sep 2020:

Here is a timeline of all the information:

(This might be a better screenshot):

An additional note, I can’t help but notice one inconsistency:
These two photos:

Has been used by news sites to promote the story. As you can see, both photos look identical, and what is implied, is that this photo of the girl was used to make the doll. And while I could understand the idea of designing a doll on real human beings, like the adult and popular but young-looking Instagram model that is willing to work for money, it’s weird that the company creating the doll positioned it in the same way as the supposed photo of the girl to promote the doll.

What did they want to achieve with that? Ask for trouble? For legal action? Because making a doll based on the photo and then positioning the doll in the same position as the photo they supposedly based the doll on, creates a risk that someone will find out that they used such photo. And in case of using a photo of a real underage girl, it would completely ruin the brand name. That doesn’t make any sense.

And how did they found this photo, if it’s not publically available? If automatic web crawlers, that work all day and night searching through web, have never indexed the photo of this girl, but indexed the news articles and photo od the doll itself then how did a human being supposed to obtain such photo from the internet? Especially considering people would use search engines to do it, and this photo simply isn’t stored by any search engine.

But you see, there is one important distinction:

This girl has only a single ponytail made because this doll on this photo looks like the doll has only a single ponytail.

But here is the thing the doll has 2 ponytails:

So it looks more like the opposite has happened, The mother purposefully made her daughter wear similar clothes, put a similar plush under her arm, told her how to sit, possibly showed her this photo of a doll to make her position herself in a similar situation, and did a photo of her, to later distribute her image, with only blurred eyes, that isn’t enough to make people who know that poor girl not to recognize her, to create a narration, that “evil pedophiles has created a doll in the image of this girl, to imagine raping her”

Once again Her mother forced her into posing for a photo, most likely telling her, that she makes it to spread it all over the news telling people, and possibly her own child, that people imagine raping her.

Please, ask yourself a question, what is more possible:

  • the Chinese company has gone through a lot of effort to obtain a photo of a child, that isn’t anywhere on the internet, with millions of free photos they can access online that look better, and have variants made from different perspectives, which is necessary for 3D modelling, that wouldn’t bring them any legal trouble, alternatively paying am an adult professional and extremely popular model, like Yami Hadaka, for her to take photos of herself for reference, from different positions, which would bring her fans as potential customers due to how similar their product looks to that popular Instagram model?
  • or, that the women with narcissistic personality disorder wanted to play a victim, and a hero at the same time, creating this narration, so she can gain her narcissistic supply from her friends on social media, and the congressman uses the story to gain more votes in the next election, by creating false moral panic, participating in the abuse of this little girl.

Because this is what it is it’s child abuse on their part, and the Child Rescue Coalition participates in the exploitation of this little kids image for their own agenda as well.

They exploit this girls image, forcing her to do things that she clearly doesn’t want to do, for their own personal benefit. It’s not sexual exploitation, but it is an exploitation of a child nonetheless.

Seriously, can anyone look at this face:

And say, with a good conscience, that she wanted at the time for this photo of hers to be made? To be published in news media? That she wanted to pose for this photo, to base her position and look to resemble a sex doll? This isn’t just about misleading the public, it’s about child abuse in plain sight, and people panicked about pedophilia seems to ignore it.

Seriously, I think this is the story that Protasia should take under consideration, and an investigation on part of the authorities has to be made about this girl and her mother. It’s important to determine whenever her mother has a narcissistic personality disorder because that would put a lot of spotlight into her potential motivation. The child needs to tell her story about the circumstances of this situation, and how is she treated by her parents, although knowing from experience, she will most likely tell what her parents will tell her to say. And the mother has to show proof, of this photo being taken and distributed before the oldest date of this doll being in distribution. I doubt they made the photo and ordered the doll based on it, considering the time span between the story publication and first distribution of this doll, but determining the age of this girl, and asking her how old she was when this photo was taken, could allow for determination of whenever the doll could really be possibly based on her.

Seriously, I have no interest in both adult, and definitely not in child sex dolls. I can understand different views on this topic, and peoples emotional responses to it, and I do find good arguments on both sides, although not particularly conclusive. I can have a discussion about it with anyone, as long as they are civil and kind.



This is very helpful, thank you!


I may be wrong, but this seems to be an earlier instance of the doll photo than what you mentioned in your research. Great job, by the way!


Kuma-doll has the creation date of 2019-06-04, this Facebook post has the creation date of 2019-06-17. Sadly the page doesn’t show the product and wasn’t archived by the Wayback Machine.

I think it’s safe to assume that the doll was in distribution since the beginning of June 2019.

Also, a couple of new things to add:

oksexdoll has information that this doll has the following certificates:

With the longest of them, the FDA, taking up to 8 months to get:

Meaning that the doll had to be produced somewhere between the beginning of November 2018, to the end of May 2019.

Also, translating the ramondoll page:

Reveals the manufacturer’s name. SM Doll, a Chinese company.


These are their contact, so someone can ask them directly about this situation.

It’s hard to tell, however, how accurate this information is, going on their site they have no dolls made with TPE that would have the size of this doll (128cm) or less. Their catalogue has 100 TPE dolls, none of which looks like this one.

I also doubt they have region-based filtering in place, I tried to access it with VPN from a couple of different locations, but the dolls are the same. Making an account also didn’t reveal any hidden products to me.

They do however have a section with silicon dolls of this size:

But it’s empty:

It seems like they had such products, but they deleted them but forgot about deleting category as well. Also, this company allows a large degree of customization, so there is a chance that other sites simply order predefined dolls from them, to present the product as a whole.

But I would say, that the similarity of their products, and this doll, is pretty close on a technical level:
image image

Going back in a Wayback Machine, they indeed had a lot of dolls in the size of 128cm:

I went through all the entries, but sadly, the Wayback Machine didn’t store enough information to verify whenever they had this doll, or not. So there is no other way than to send them an email or call their phone to ask them about this story.


" it’s weird that the company creating the doll positioned it in the same way as the supposed photo of the girl to promote the doll. "

That’s the first thing I noticed. It’s good that you have gone to all this trouble, and I guess it is necessary. But to my mind, the whole story seems so obviously nefarious it beggars belief that anyone would take it seriously. The mother clearly has no more credibility (to astute observers at least) than our own Mr Carl Beech and his horror stories of Whitehall debauchment.


This is a truly spectacular amount of research you have done, unfortunately, I doubt it will change anything.

Most Americans don’t know about the Prostasia Foundation and those that do consider it to be a ‘‘child trafficking ring in disguise’’. Furthermore, western society is so sexphobic that westerners kinda just shut off their brains when discussing sexual crime.


I think it is important to note, however, that Wikipedia is not so favorable to this specific topic. I distinctly remember one of the founders of Wikipedia calling MAP’s ‘‘Subhuman’’ on Twitter and refusing to allow the article on pedophilia to be edited in any way that gives a sympathetic view towards pedophiles.


If you’re talking about Larry Sanger, he hasn’t been involved with Wikipedia for years and has no status there. According to the (other, or sole, depending on who you believe) co-founder, he was only ever an employee. But you are otherwise correct. The entry on pedophilia, notoriously, conflates pedophilia and pedophilic disorder. But they refuse to accept any edits to correct this, no matter how many sources you may cite.


Yeah, that’s him. I remember the face.

Wikipedia does seem to allow edits to the entry on pedophilia if they add more negativity to the subject, for one week back in 2019, the article began with ‘‘Pedophiles are sick people-’’ before it was reset to be more encyclopedic.


New here, but I’ve been lurking for a while. I have some information to add, regarding the doll in question. My friend in Shenzhen works with every major manufacturer in China and I asked about this. This doll was originally made by a company called Dollhouse 168, 128cm “Molly”. Later on, several factories copied it. He/she has confirmed it was not designed from an actual person, and has never heard of this. I have some pictures of the doll by the manufacturer, but they’re x-rated and I have not read the site rules over. If I can post them, please reply.

I wish I could be of more help, good luck with your research.


If you can, please DM either me, @terminus with this information!
I want testimony hopefully proof of identity to go with this!

The outrage over child sex dolls is no different than the outrage over violent video games! There is no reason to criminalize a sex doll when it causes no harm!


Dollhouse 168, Piper Dolls, and Doll4ever are all the same boss. This model originated from 168. They’re known for being the gold standard for tpe, the most trusted name in the business.

It shows all the classic signs of a moral panic, the “gateway” behavior. I lived through one during the 1980’s and again during the 90’s. As a doll owner, I’ve been following this issue for a while. Since aliexpress removed all sales to USA (thanks to pressure from our politicians, and from australia) business has tanked for everyone. My friend has said their biggest market was the USA. The people on TDF couldn’t care less, they buried their heads in the sand because they just thought this would go away if they ignored. Their logic was because these dolls weren’t allowed on their site, it wasn’t their concern. The owner of Piper dolls is mad as hell at them, they ripped him off and made a lot of accusations about his dolls being underage and blacklisted from the site.

Here’s the situation with aliexpress:

“yes, there are a big change for selling dolls in the year 2020. all dolls below 140cm can not post and sell on aliexpress. even some dolls taller than 140cm, but Face looks a little younger, was deleted by Aliexpress . My aliexpress store used to closed due to there are some younger looking doll.”


I am disappointed to discover that this thread is the only instance in which anyone questioned this mother’s story.

This is why western society will never make any progress with sex legislation because people are too squeamish to ever think rationally about cases like this.


Bumping to make sure it’s clear to anybody curious.

Another bump. I believe this issue needs to be looked at further.

There is no “Terri” and the Child Rescue Coalition is committing fraud by allowing this false story to remain and not correcting the record.