Lois Gibson’s Forensic Reports
Sister Lucy Truth has consulted Lois Gibson, one of the world’s foremost forensic artists, to confirm the existence of two separate Sr. Lucy’s. We have two forensic reports from Mrs. Gibson as well as two forensic art portraits that conclusively indicate the existence of an impostor.
Forensic Art
Sister Lucy Truth consulted Lois Gibson, one of the world’s foremost forensic artists who holds the 2017 Guinness World Record for most identifications by a forensic artist. According to a 2012 ABC News story, she has helped Houston’s police force solve 1,266 crimes with her forensic work. Mrs. Gibson has provided Sister Lucy Truth with three separate comparison reports that, from a forensic standpoint, conclusively indicate the existence two separate Sister Lucy’s.
In a private correspondence, she wrote that in her professional opinion even one of these reports would be sufficient for complete confirmation of the existence of two individuals:
VIEW THE REPORTS BELOW
Forensic Art Report and Portraits: Demonstrates the physiological differences between the two Sr. Lucy’s, which are not explainable by dental work or plastic surgery. Also includes two professional forensic portraits of what the real Sr. Lucy would have looked like at ages 60 and 80, compared to the impostor.
Second Forensic Report: Confirms that there was only one official substitute between 1967 and her death in 2005.
Animetrics Facial Analysis Report
Sister Lucy Truth hired Animetrics to conduct a facial analysis based on extensive photographic records. Animetrics, a leading developer in advanced facial recognition technology for the military, intelligence, and law enforcement, made use of ForensicaGPS to process the images.
We note here for clarification that in most reports already conducted and still forthcoming, we have divided photographic evidence of the two Sister Lucys into four groups: Subject A, B, C, and D as seen in our photo galleries. However, the Subject A that the Animetrics report refers to corresponds with Subject B in our photo gallery (i.e., images of Sr. Lucy between the ages of 20–40), and Subject B in the report corresponds with Subject C in our gallery (i.e., Sr. Lucy at her 1967 appearance).
CLICK HERE TO ACCESS THE FACIAL RECOGNITION REPORT BY ANIMETRICS.
iPRoBe Facial Recognition Report
As part of the rigorous investigation into the truth of Sr. Lucy and her imposter, Sister Lucy Truth turned to the iPRoBe Lab at Michigan State University to utilize its state-of-the-art facial recognition and biometric software. The lab is headed by Dr. Arun Ross, an established leader in biometrics who has co-authored the standard textbook introduction to the subject.
iPRoBe Lab’s report of the photographs submitted for analysis establishes further conclusive evidence that the pre-1967 Sr. Lucy and the post-1967 Sr. Lucy are two distinct individuals.
CLICK HERE TO ACCESS IPROBE LAB’S FACIAL RECOGNITION REPORT.
Brayovic Super-Recognizer Analysis
Sister Lucy Truth commissioned the exceptional facial recognition abilities of Ms. Dragica Brayovic, a facial “super-recognizer,” whose capacity to process and analyze facial identities and features is above average. Ms. Brayovic is currently involved in the cutting-edge research on super-recognizers, conducted by Dr. David White at UNSW Sydney.
What is a Super-Recognizer?
Super-recognizers (SRs) are individuals who are extremely proficient at processing facial identity.
— “Super-Recognizers: From the Lab to the World and Back Again” (2019), British Journal of Psychology
→ READ A REVIEW OF THE CURRENT SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE ON SUPER-RECOGNIZERS HERE.
Our discovery of super-recognizers demonstrates that people can not only be much worse than average at face recognition (as in developmental prosopagnosia), but also much better than average.
— “Super-Recognizers: People with Extraordinary Face Recognition Ability” (2009), Psychonomic Bulletin & Review
→ READ THE SEMINAL WORK DISCUSSING SUPER-RECOGNIZERS AND FACIAL RECOGNITION ABILITY HERE.
Ms. Brayovic concludes that the pre-1967 and post-1967 Sr. Lucy’s are certainly different individuals.
FROM THE REPORT
Based on my extensive review I can determine the following points set forth below.
Conclusion on Images:
The group of unknown images depict two different women.
1. Subject A (young Sr. Lucy) is the same person as Subject B (adult, pre-1967 Sr. Lucy)
2. Subject B is a different person than Subject C (1967 Sr. Lucy II)
3. Subject B is a different person than Subject D (elderly, post-1967 Sr. Lucy)
4. Subject C is the same person as Subject D
Ms. Brayovic was also asked to analyze the face of Sr. Lucy in two video excerpts. Ms. Brayovic was asked to examine the 1967 Sr. Lucy, shown between 18:45 and 21:46 of the following video: https://arquivos.rtp.pt/conteudos/a-irma-lucia/
Next, she was asked to analyze the face of Sr. Lucy (the elderly, post-1967 Sr. Lucy) in this video, featured between :30 and 2:00: https://youtu.be/GQf2IaPF9V4?t=30
Conclusion on Video Excerpts:
The video excerpts depict a different woman than the known Subject A/B (the real Sr. Lucy).
CLICK HERE TO ACCESS THE SUPER-RECOGNIZER ANALYSIS AND REPORT.
Facial Math Measurements
Sister Lucy Truth sought to confirm some of the visual findings offered by experts including Dr. Garcia, the board-certified plastic surgeon, Lois Gibson, the expert forensic artist, and facial recognition specialists. These visual findings included the claims that
(a) Lucy I’s philtrum (base of nose to top of upper lip) was longer than Lucy II’s philtrum,
(b) Lucy II had a wider nose,
(c) Lucy II’s eyebrows are farther away from her eyes than Lucy I, and
(d) Lucy I’s left eyebrow is arched relative to her right brow, a feature not observed in Lucy II.
All of these findings were confirmed by careful mathematical measurements with the help of an independent prosthodontist.
FROM THE REPORT
Ratios comparing anatomical landmarks on an individual’s face should remain constant despite an individual appearing in different sizes in certain photographs. For example, dental professionals, such as prosthodontists, use old photographs of a patient to help establish the size of a patient’s missing tooth. Old photographs allow for the dentist to establish a mathematical ratio between a tooth and other anatomical landmarks on the patient’s face as depicted in the photograph. These ratios are then applied to the live patient’s face to deduce the size of a missing tooth.
With the help of a prosthodontist, Sister Lucy Truth applied these measurement principles to a collection of full face photographs of the known Lucy I and the impostor Lucy II. The data below shows various ratios documented using different anatomical features of the face.
Facial measurements demonstrate that pre-1967 Lucy is not the same woman who was presented in 1967 and thereafter because they have different
(a) philtrum lengths
(b) nose widths, and
(c) eyebrow/eye distances.
KEY FINDING 1
Philtrum: Lucy I’s Philtrum is Longer Than Lucy II’s Philtrum and Therefore Inconsistent with Aging Process
Philtrum length gets longer with age, not shorter. Lucy II has a shorter philtrum than Lucy I—an inconsistent finding which is also totally at odds with the known aging process.
Ideal Innovations Report
Sister Lucy Truth (SLT) commissioned a facial analysis report from Ideal Innovations Incorporated (I3), an industry leader in facial examination, training, and biometrics and a contractor with the FBI and the Defense Forensic Science Center. Critically, observations support that the 1967 “Sr. Lucy” and post-1967 elderly “Sr. Lucy” are the same person. However, most of the report yielded a neutral result, which does not contradict the findings of our other experts but remained agnostic regarding the pre-1967 Sr. Lucy and the “Lucy” who appeared after 1967.
SLT presents the full report here for the sake of objectivity and as further evidence of our good will, demonstrating that the results of these expert findings were independently produced and not dictated by SLT.