‘There Are Two Sister Lucys’: Powerful Conclusion of a [Another] Forensic Professional

[Stone]

‘There Are Two Sister Lucys’: Powerful Conclusion of a [Another] Forensic Professional

TIA | June 19, 2023


A reader recently sent TIA a link to an “Anatomical Report” by Professor Carlos Antonio Bezerra, a Portuguese intellectual and a forensic sculptor, which was published on Sister Lucy Truth. The site, founded in 2017, is dedicated to exposing the deceitful ploy of the Vatican in replacing the real Sister Lucia dos Santos with an imposter Sister.

His work is based on the same hypothesis presented by me in an article posted on April 27, 2006, on the TIA website, which proposed that there were two Sister Lucys (The Two Sister Lucys: Photos and Facts).

Our 2006 study presented the obvious differences in the two Sister Lucys

Ours was a simple analysis based on viewing pictures taken before her entry into the Carmelite Convent in Coimbra on March 25, 1948, and comparing them to photos of what appears to be a different nun who reappeared on the public scene in 1967, almost 20 years later, when she reemerged to public view at a visit Paul VI made to Portugal. That comparison raised a question: Can these two nuns be the same person? Our answer: It seems they are not.

The article raised furor in progressivist and even conservative sectors of the Catholic milieu, and for many years we bore the stigma of having the nerve to suggest the Vatican could replace the Seer of Fatima. Why? “The very idea is preposterous!” said our critics. “You are wicked conspirators for even proposing such a thing!”

Time passed, the waters calmed, and many persons who undertook an objective comparison of the two groups of photos came to our conclusion: There was an exchange made, and a second Sister Lucy had indeed entered the picture.


Forensic expert studies the photos

In 2013 the valorous priests of the Servants of the Holy Family hired a company specialized in photo regressions and progressions through computer technology. The result of their professional study was the same we had reached, as shown in this article.

The pictures of age progression & regression of Sister lucy 1, above, and Sister Lucy II, below, clearly show two different persons based on the known photos

In February 2017 writer Frank Rega applied the “eye-tooth ratio” scientific method of comparison to the photos of the two Lucys; he reached the same conclusion, as he explains here.

Also in 2017, Sister Lucy Truth site appeared, and has added demonstrations that support the two Sister Lucys hypothesis. The anatomical report by forensic sculptor Prof. Carlos Bezerra is one of these. His sculptures painstakingly composed from photos of the two Sister Lucy's present another very solid proof that they are two different persons.

The question becomes, What happened to Sister Lucy 1?

His line of work consists in creating a three-dimensional image of a person, often used to identify a murder victim or track down a criminal. According to the results of his study, there was indeed a crime in this case.

• The crime is replacing Sister Lucia Santos with an imposter Sister.
  
• The perpetrator of that crime is the Vatican.
  
• The primary victim of the crime is the real Sister Lucia do Santos of Fatima, who lost her identity and voice, significantly right before 1960, the year the Secret should have been released. She had been personally instructed by Our Lady that the Secret should be revealed in that year and there is no doubt the real Sister Lucy would have made every effort to do so, even thwarting Vatican commands.
  

The secondary victims are the Catholic faithful, who believed the authorities who presented a false Sister Lucy with her progressivist messages and modern way of being and who approved the false third Secret released in 2002 by Cardinals Ratzinger and Sodano and Archbishop Tarcisio Bertone.


Anatomical report of Prof. Bezerra

Bezerra reports that he first studied photographs of Sister Lucia dos Santos from her childhood until her entry into the Carmel of Coimbra. He then studied photos of Sister Lucy as she appeared in that Convent from 1967 until her death.

He claimed that the two-dimensional limitation of the paper photographs was insufficient for a conclusive analysis. So, he modeled with plasticine clay a three-dimensional figure of both Sister Lucys, based on those two sets of photographs.

Although I disagree that a study of two sets of photographs of persons by an expert in anatomical structure could not produce a strong conclusion, I heartily support his decision to make the matter of two different nuns crystal clear.

Thus, working from the two sets of pictures (one showing the whole face, the other a profile) pictured on this page, Prof. Bezerra modeled two three-dimensional figures, accentuating without changing an iota the facial bone structure of each face.

Photos used of the pre-1967 Sister Lucia dos Santos by Prof. Bezerra for his study

In his highly professional and technical report, he analyzes Sister Lucy I as having the following characteristics, summarized below:

• A tendency to height over width in the bone structure of the face, resulting in a more lengthy, oval and narrow overall format.
  
• A jaw with a tendency to recede, the bone structure taking a downward and backward vertical development.
  
• The forehead smooth and round, bringing the more perfect design of the eyebrows closer together toward the nasal bone.
  
• The teeth of the upper arch protrude forward, which in technical language is called a bimalillary protrusion.
  

These characteristics make the face of Lucy I, when viewed in profile, a convex face.

The photos used to make the analysis of the Post 1967 Sister Lucy

Then, he goes to analyze the facial structure of Sister Lucy 2, which he describes as follows:

• The arched forehead (or supraciliary arch), a feature acquired in childhood or that is congenital, makes the space between the eyebrows larger and reduces wrinkling in the forehead.
  
• The chin is more prominent, corpulent and voluminous.
  
• This jutting forward of the chin makes the lower lip larger (not thicker) with the tendency to protrude forward. It is this protrusion that makes the individual quite different from what is seen in Sister Lucy I, and, as Prof. Bezerra states: “This difference cannot be explained in any way, neither by the aging process, nor by the use of dental prosthesis (denture or dental surgery to restructure a mouth).
  
• Thus Sister Lucy II has a concave-shaped profile, with a more prominent forehead and chin.
  

Convex vs. concave profiles, the structure does not change with aging

Prof. Berrera’s conclusion is decisive: “I state beyond doubt from the analyses done from the 3D images of individuals 1 and 2 that they are not the same person, because there are insuperable differences throughout the bone structure of the faces, which cannot be explained in any other way.”

Conclusion: The two facial structures cannot be the same person

I congratulate Prof. Carlos Antonio Bezerra and Sister Lucy Truth website for adding this new evidence to the case for the Two Sister Lucys, and for reaching the indisputable conclusion, which 17 years ago I had only proposed: There are two Sister Lucys.

Prof. Bezerra takes the consequences further than I did: He straightforwardly accuses the Vatican of crime, and specifies the victims. I do not know whether or not he intends to legally prosecute the Vatican. I imagine that no international court would take this case, and if any would, I suspect the final sentence would favor the Vatican, although Prof. Bezerra has truth on his side.

I pray that someday we may know the fate of the real Sister Lucy.