Evidence 2

Evidence Page – More Forensic Reports

Continuing with a Plastic Surgeon’s Forensic Report

Plastic Surgeon Report

Sister Lucy Truth had Dr. Julio Garcia, a world-class, certified plastic surgeon, analyze a set of photos to determine whether there were two Sister Lucys. Dr. Garcia was recognized by the International Association of Plastic Surgeons as a Leading Physician of the World, which “recognize[s] physicians for their outstanding contributions to research, philanthropy and clinical advancements,” and was named a top plastic surgeon in Las Vegas, Nevada for 2016.

As seen in this report, the analysis of the photographic images refers to Subject A (0-18 years old), Subject B (20-40 years), Subject C (60 years old), and Subject D (75 years+). These are the four groups we divided the images into to organize the analysis. We are currently of the opinion that Subject A and Subject B are the same individual. We are also relatively confident (though not certain) that Subject C and Subject D are the same individual. Dr. Garcia is confident that Subject A/B depict a different individual than the individual(s) depicted in Subject C/D.

CLICK HERE TO ACCESS DR. GARCIA’S FULL OPINION AND ANALYSIS

FROM DR. GARCIA’S REPORT

Background

I am board certified in Plastic Surgery. I have served on the Board of Trustees of the Clark County Medical Society, as former vice chief of staff at Humana Sunrise Hospital, and Chief of Plastic surgery at both Humana Sunrise and Valley Hospitals. My educational background includes a degree in art history and biology from Northwestern University. I earned a medical degree from the University of Illinois at Chicago—College of Medicine.

Opinion

As a board-certified Plastic Surgeon, I am of the opinion that Subject B and Subject C share some similarities, but I am very confident they are not the same individual. The strongest evidence for this conclusion is the discrepancy between the chins. Subject C and Subject D have far more prominent, protrusive chins when compared to the profile view of Subject B. This difference cannot be explained by the aging process. Nor could dental work account for the observed discrepancy. In addition, Subject B’s eyelids provide additional evidence that Subject B is a different individual than the individual pictured in Subject C and Subject D because

a. an eyelid crease suddenly becomes evident in the latter images and

b. the space between the brow and eyelash appears to expand over time instead of diminishing.

I am of the opinion that Subject A and Subjectr B is the same person. Taking into consideration normal changes during early years, I am of the opinion that Subject B is a mature Subject A. The difference in upper eyelid skin between Subject C and Subject D points to them possibly being different people or going through periods of weight gain and loss.

Chin

The chin of Subject B is inconsistent with the chin of Subject C and Subject D. As we age, we lose fat and bone making the appearance of the chin less prominent over time. Both Subject C and Subject D have a far more prominent chin than is evident in Subject B. This could only be explained via a chin implant. Subject B’s chin is different than both Subject C and Subject D in a manner which cannot be explained by the aging process. The chin and jaw will not be altered in the manner apparent in the images and video with usual dental work, it would take broken jaw bones or facial bones. The chin/jaw is consistent between Subject A and Subject B. The chin/jaw is consistent between Subject C and Subject D.

Eyelids and Eyebrows

Although Subject C has a fuller upper lid compared to Subject D, as did Subject A/B, in Subject D, the aging of the upper lid is not compatible with the upper eyelids of Subjects A/B and normal aging. An upper eyelid difference exists between Subject C and D although aging along could be a possible explanation.

However, the eyelid difference between Subject B and Subject D is significantly different in a manner likely not due to age. The same is true when comparing Subject B and Subject C, however, the appearance of Subject D’s lids is stronger evidence. It would be very unusual to not be able to detect a crease in the upper lid when an individual is young and then observe such a crease when that same individual ages. In addition, the distance between the bottom of Subject B’s eyebrow to her upper eyelash is shorter than the distance observable on Subject C and D. The distance should shorten, not lengthen, as a person ages because the brow is brought lower during the aging process.

The descent and less thickness of the eyebrows evident between Subject B as compared to Subject C and D can be explained by the aging process.

Mouth

Elongation of the upper lip is common in all aging. This process is evident within these images. The lips are certainly thinner when comparing Subject B and Subject C, but this is not conclusive because aging is a possible explanation.

Other Considerations

Several items warrant additional investigation.

First, at least one of the images appears to have been tampered with or otherwise altered. Specifically, Subject C – Exhibit 6 presents an image of Subject C that is incompatible with the lighting present in the remainder of the image.

Second, there is also no doubt that Subject B has a narrower lower face than Subject C/Subject D. However, it’s possible this difference could possibly be accounted for by the aging process.

Third, there appears to potentially be a discrepancy between the noses of Subject B and Subject C/D. The width of the nose of Subject C/D appears wide relative to the mouth when compared to the nose and mouth of Subject B. However, more analysis of this issue would be necessary.

Fourth, the amount of gingiva (gums) of the upper teeth seems larger in Subject D, and that is not a normal aging issue because this amount should decrease over time, making me believe that Subject C and Subject D possibly may not be the same person, however I would defer to the dental expert on this issue.

All of the following opinions set forth above are stated to a reasonable degree of medical probability based upon my education and training as a board-certified Plastic Surgeon.

Dr. Julio L. Garcia

Handwriting Analysis

Bart Baggett is among the world’s leading forensic handwriting experts. From Mr. Baggett’s curriculum vitae:

He is a skilled authority in handwriting identification and has examined over 14,000 documents as part of over 880 cases. He is a court qualified expert witness in the field of questioned documents within the states of California, Texas, Alaska, Nevada, and Arizona.

Sister Lucy Truth turned to his expertise to analyze a sizable set of handwriting samples from Sister Lucy in order to detect any differences. In his analysis, he concludes that the submitted document sample written by the post-1967 Sr. Lucy was “highly likely a document written by another person with many similar characteristics in letter form and letter structure.”

Below you will find the following documents that may be downloaded:

The three handwriting analysis reports that the Sister Lucy Truth project commissioned Bart Baggett to complete. Please note that Report 1 was previously uploaded here and has now been revised and expanded based on further analysis by Mr. Baggett.
The packet of examined handwriting samples used for Mr. Baggett’s first report, documents Q1-Q5.
The packet of signature samples that are the subject of the second report.
The packet of post-1969 writings and the April 13, 1980 letter from Sr. Lucy II to Fr. Umberto Pasquale, which are examined in Baggett’s third report.
The remainder of handwriting samples known to be written by Sr. Lucy I against which Mr. Baggett was able to analyze and compare later forgeries. Mr. Baggett has authenticated these samples as being from a single person distinct from Sr. Lucy II’s handwriting.
The full report that includes all of the above material. NB: the file size is 51 MB.

1. CLICK HERE TO ACCESS THE THREE HANDWRITING ANALYSIS REPORTS BY BART BAGGETT

2. CLICK HERE TO ACCESS THE HANDWRITING SAMPLES ANALYZED IN REPORT 1

3. CLICK HERE TO ACCESS THE SIGNATURE SAMPLES ANALYZED IN REPORT 2

4. CLICK HERE TO ACCESS THE QUESTIONED SAMPLES AND 1980 LETTER ANALYZED IN REPORT 3

5. CLICK HERE TO ACCESS THE KNOWN HANDWRITING SAMPLES OF THE REAL SR. LUCY

6. CLICK HERE TO ACCESS THE FULL HANDWRITING ANALYSIS REPORT

FROM BART BAGGETT’S DECLARATION

EXCERPT FROM REPORT 1

I, BART BAGGETT, hereby declare: 1. I am over the age of eighteen (18) and I am not a party to the matter of The Writing of Irma Lucia. If called as a witness, I could and would competently testify to all of the facts, statements and opinions set forth in this declaration and the attached exhibit based on my personal knowledge except where based on my information and belief, and, as to matters stated on my information and belief, I believe them to be true and correct to the best of my knowledge.

2. Request

I am submitting my declaration to advise the Court of my conclusion regarding the authenticity of the handwriting of IRMA LUCIA on a four-page Handwritten Letter dated January 3, 1944 and a one-page Handwritten Letter dated December 27, 1969.

3. Attachments

Attached to this Declaration are the letters which are the questioned documents of IRMA LUCIA, labeled as ‘Q1 through Q5’, which is true and correct. The known documents of IRMA LUCIA are attached and labeled as ‘K1 through K101’, which is true and correct. Attached to this Declaration are the documents labeled as ‘EXHIBIT A,’ which is my Curriculum Vitae, which is true and correct.

4. QUESTIONED DOCUMENT(S) (Attached as Q1 through Q5)

Q1-Q4 High-quality color photocopies of a four-page Handwritten Letter dated January 3, 1944 containing the alleged handwriting of IRMA LUCIA.

Q5 A one-page copy of a one-page Handwritten Letter dated December 27, 1969 containing the alleged handwriting and signature of IRMA LUCIA.

6. BASIS OF OPINION

The basis for handwriting identification is that writing habits are not instinctive or hereditary but are complex processes that are developed gradually through habit and that handwriting is unique to each individual. Further, the basic axiom is that no one person writes exactly the same way twice and no two people write exactly the same. Thus, writing habits or individual characteristics distinguish one person’s handwriting from another. A process of analysis, comparison and evaluation is conducted between the known standards and questioned document(s). Overall class characteristics from native Portuguese writers of the time period were also a consideration. The conclusions of the expert opinions are derived from the ASTM Standard Terminology for Expressing Conclusions for Forensic Document Examiners.

BART BAGGETT’S DECLARATION CONTINUED

7. Observations

a. Similarities between the known writing of Irma Lucia and Q1-Q4 include, but are not limited to:

v. The scissor-like angles at the baseline which form connectors between letters. This is a unique and consistent pattern which also helps reveal the overall rhythm of the writing. The spaces and sharp angles are consistent in the known writing.

The unique baseline arcades and overall rhythm of the Q5 document is one of the significant differences that lead to my conclusion (that differs from my conclusion for Q1-Q4) on this document.

vi. The unique starting point and formation of the lowercase ‘p’. This is observable in the entire the phrase “parte do segredo” which appears in both the known Manuscript (K92) and questioned document (Q1). This side-by-side comparison is useful to see the spacing, letter connections, and letter formations.

Samples

viii. The formation of the capital letter ‘P’;

1. This formation has a slight variation between the known documents and the Q5.

b. Differences between the known writing of Irma Lucia and Q5 include, but are not limited to:

i. The Q5 document has a loop on the lowercase letter ‘d’, but the shape is much more narrow, often closed, and pointed. This is a common class characteristic of the time period, so the details of the formation are much more relevant than merely the existence of such a loop in a writing from this time period. The swooped d-loop is a significant difference.

ii. The Q5 document contains many vertically-slanted upstrokes on the lowercase letters ‘t’ and ‘l’. This is a significant difference than the consistent rightward-slanted formations of the hundreds of pages of known exemplars.

iii. The baseline of the Q5 document is significantly less organized, rhythmic, and linear than the known writing samples;

iv. The capital letter ‘P’ is not formed with a circular bowl as seen in the known writing;

v. The capital ‘F’ in the Q5 document contains a curved top bar and downstroke which is not consistent with the known writer’s formation of the capital letter ‘F’. The known writer uses three distinct strokes to form the ‘F’, not two.

vi. The final stroke of the loop on the lower zone letters ‘g’, ‘j’, and ‘y’ have a curve and seem to be longer, fuller, and overall slightly different in formation from that of the known documents.

vii. The words printed in lowercase in the 11th line from the bottom on Q5 (which contains the word “Esperanca”) is a variation in writing formation within the questioned document that is unaccounted for. The printed letters do not match the writer of the rest of the questioned document.

c. The differences between the handwriting on Q5 and the known documents of Irma Lucia are not the result of typical decreases in muscular movement related to diseases of old age or simply the number of years between reliable samples. While many strokes and letters are consistent with the “class characteristics”, the overall rhythm and baselines and connections are not consistent with the same writer.

8. Opinion

Based upon my thorough analysis of these items, and from an application of accepted forensic document examination tools, principals and techniques, my professional expert opinions are as follows:

It has been determined that IRMA LUCIA has been identified as the author of questioned documents, Q1 through Q4.

It is highly probable that IRMA LUCIA did not write the questioned document, Q5. This is highly likely a document written by another person with many similar characteristics in letter form and letter structure. It is not possible to know if this is the author’s natural signature, or it was intentionally created to look similar to the author’s known writing.

9. Declaration

I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on this 31st day of December 2018, in Sherman Oaks, California 91403.

Bart Baggett, Declarant.

Oral Surgeon Report

Sister Lucy Truth commissioned Dr. Joseph Mascaro, DMD, a well-respected oral surgeon with over 40 years of experience, to analyze our full photo and video collections of the two Sr. Lucys and provide us with his expert opinion. Dr. Mascaro points out that not only are the profiles of the two individuals in “nearly opposite condition,” but these differences cannot be explained through dental work and are caused by different skeletal structures of the face. Because of this medical fact, Dr. Mascaro concludes: “It is my opinion that Lucy I and Lucy II are not and cannot be the same individual. These opinions are offered to a reasonable degree of medical certainty.”

CLICK HERE TO ACCESS THE ORAL SURGEON REPORT.

FROM DR. MASCARO’S ORAL SURGEON REPORT

After reviewing the photographic and video evidence over the course of several months, it is clear that “Lucy I” (Subject A/B) and “Lucy II” (Subject C/D) are not the same individual. Several anatomical facts support this conclusion particularly when the profiles are compared.

RETROGNATHIC VS. PROGNATHIC PROFILES

Lucy I’s mouth/teeth tend to extend anteriorly (forward). In other words, her mouth area sticks out relative to her other facial structures. This is an underlying feature of Lucy I’s skeletal structure. This skeletal structure would not significantly change if all of her teeth were extracted and dentures worn. In contrast, Lucy II’s profile presents a nearly opposite condition: a prognathic profile with a concave appearance.

Lucy II presents maxilla (upper jaw) retrusion and mandibular protrusion. This protrusion is observable as Lucy II’s mandible/chin is nearly parallel to the tip of her nose, a spot anterior to her nostrile. Yet, Lucy I’s chin is recessed relative to the tip of her nose. The most anterior part of Lucy I’s chin is vertically aligned to a spot posterior to her nostril.

TOOTH EXTRACTION AND DENTURES

Skeletal structure would not significantly change if all of her teeth were extracted and dentures worn.

Dentures, which seem to be at least reasonably well-fit, further support the conclusion that these images depict two different people. The presence of dentures would work to maintain the vertical dimension and prevent over-rotation of the mandible. With the vertical height maintained, there is no good explanation regarding Lucy II’s significant chin protrusion forward when compared to Lucy I.

In addition, Lucy II’s facial height does not appear radically different than Lucy I which, again, supports the opinion that removal of all the teeth is unable to account for the marked change in profiles, particularly the mandibular protrusion.

A SKELETAL, NOT DENTAL, DIFFERENCE

A severely prognathic chin is skeletal, not dental in origin.

CONCLUSION

During the course of my career, I have performed hundreds of jaw osteotomies (precisely planned fractures of the jaw to reposition the bones) and extracted thousands of teeth. I am familiar with expected changes to an individual’s face as a result of tooth extraction and placement of dentures. It is my opinion that Lucy I and Lucy II are not and cannot be the same individual. These opinions are offered to a reasonable degree of medical certainty.

CLICK HERE TO ACCESS THE ORAL SURGEON REPORT.

Dr. Ruud Karsten Dental Report 1

Sister Lucy Truth had Dr. Ruud Karsten, DDS, differentiate between the two Sister Lucys based on dental evidence within known photographs. Dr. Karsten has a proven record from both his years of practice and his academic background as a senior lecturer in periodontics (the branch of dentistry concerned with the structures that support the teeth) at the Radboud University College of Dental Sciences in Nijmegen, The Netherlands.

In a private email, Dr. Karsten reconfirmed his professional opinion that there are two Sister Lucys:

Email from Dr. Karsten

Op ma 18 feb. 2019 om 15:16 schreef Ruud Karsten :
Dear Dr. Chojnowski,

Yes, for sure, overall I hold that there there are two sisters Lucia, the one who saw the Virgin Mary in 1917, and a.o. put the third part of the secret on paper in the 40ties of the 20th century; and the other, who attended the festivities at the 50th anniversary of the Fatima apparitions, which was in 1967, and which Pope Paul VI honored with his visit, she being the Lucia who died in 2005. […]

Sincerely yours,
Ruud Karsten

CLICK HERE TO ACCESS DR. RUUD KARSTEN’S DENTAL REPORT.

FROM DR. KARSTEN’S DENTAL REPORT

I have studied the available photographs of Sr. Lucia, who received apparitions from our Lady, the Virgin Mary in 1917 (in this analysis called Lucia I), as well as of the unknown person,the latter who is shown to the world as the Sr. Lucia since 1967, exactly 50 years after the Virgin Mary appeared in Fatima, Portugal, and who died in 2005 (in this analysis called Lucia II.)

The question raised is whether Lucia II is the same person as Lucia I.

As a dentist/periodontologist, I of course focused my analysis on the photographs, which show in more or less detail the upper front teeth, and adjacent gums of Lucia I, respectively Lucia II.

Images of Lucia I

B3 shows an irregular tooth row, some teeth extruded, probably due to periodontal disease, which causes a lack of tooth support, enabling the teeth to grow out. B13 shows Lucia I appearing with a regular row of nice teeth. In January, 1948, her dentist, dr. Alcino Magelhaes, proposed to Lucia I, that all teeth be removed, and a denture be made for replacement. He already removed two teeth then, which may have been the most extruded ones of the upper front. In March, 1948, two more teeth were extracted. In May, 1948, Lucia I suffered of severe inflammatory disease in her mouth, which indicates that several teeth with periodontal disease, and/or root apex inflammation, still existed in her mouth. Around that time dr. Alcino Magelhaes expressed his astonishment that not all teeth had already been removed, as was planned in January, 1948, but later he understood why. He has then finished the dental extraction treatment, and the replacement with artificial teeth. Although it is written that he ‘implanted’ artificial teeth, we must take it that he had a full acrylic denture made for Lucia I. The real implantation of artificial teeth in jaw bone, using titanium screw type “roots”, on which a dental tooth structure of metal and porcelain is built, the so-called supra-structure, was not possible in 1948.

Images of Lucia II

Comparing the upper front teeth of both Lucia I and Lucia II in the photographs 4 (of 7), and 6 (of 7) of the ‘Shape of Smile’ series, leads me to the definite conclusion that Lucia II wears an upper denture, at least at her older age. I wouldn’t be surprised that the denture Lucia II wears in these photographs is the same she has been wearing since around 1967, as shown in the photographs C7, C8, C9, C13, C15, C16, C19, D0, D0A, and D0E. The artificial teeth are unnatural short, and have no interdental contacts. The denture teeth are worn of through age. I do not believe that a new denture is made, and adapted in the mouth of Lucia II at older age, since by then, the esthetics of the denture would have been much more natural, showing longer teeth, and less acrylic ‘gums’.

Gnathological Characteristics

Although it wasn’t meant for me to say something about other aspects of the jaws of Lucia I and Lucia II, I take the freedom to do so. I am pointing at the aspect of facial profile of both women. From a comparison of the lower facial profile of Lucia I and Lucia II, at the photographs shown in the ‘Facial profile’ series, it is obvious, even for untrained persons, that the profiles are different. Lucia II shows a progeny of the lower jaw, making the profile of her lower face more concave, compared to Lucia I, who’s profile is so to say convex, her chin being more dorsally positioned with respect to the tip of the nose, even só much, that it costs her some effort to close her lips without strain of the muscles of the chin/lower lip. The latter is visible at most of the available frontal photographs of Lucia I, even at younger age. I refer to photographs A4, B2, B4, B9, B10, B11A, and B11B. However, I can’t exclude that at her middle age, the extruded upper teeth have caused at least part of the difficulty in lip closure. The atrophy of the upper front part of the dentition/alveolar bone of Lucia II could explain her concave lower facial profile in part, but still not to the extent that this atrophy would be the only responsible factor in this respect.

CLICK HERE TO ACCESS DR. RUUD KARSTEN’S DENTAL REPORT.

Home