CathInfo.com

St. Therese is also usually depicted as holding a crucifix with roses on/around it.  Maybe she was a Rosicrucian too?

.
Aren't the Rosicrucians supposed to be mysterious? 
Then what about the Mysteries of the Rosary and Mystical Rose?
(...Vessel of honor, Singular vessel of devotion, Mystical rose, Tower of David, Tower of ivory, House of Gold, Ark of the Covenant, etc.)

The image without Lucia was "shot" with  a TV camera by an RTP TV cameraman. The other image is a photography shot by a photographer from a slightly different angle.

.
I was going to say it looks like a different camera took it. At first glance the crowd seems to be two different crowds but looking closely you can see some of the same faces, only re-positioned because of two different camera angles. 
.
The press often has a booth with a whole fleet of cameramen and cameras taking pictures at various papal events. So somebody found a way to insert the figure of a person (the fake Lucy) into the photo before the time of Photoshop, that is, at least before it went public.
.
There is a copy of the so-called Third Secret that seems to have been altered before the advent of Xerox or computers. It's on the TIA website. Atila Sinke-Guimaraes does an excellent job of unpacking the thing using subtle clues and his superior knowledge of Portuguese. (The letter is handwritten in that language.) But he makes no pretense of looking into the question of HOW the letter could have been faked. So there is no reason to wonder if anyone had a motive for using cutting-edge technology to deceive Catholics regarding the whereabouts or writings of Sister Lucia of Fatima. One thing's for sure, the Vatican did NOT WANT HER AROUND to answer any questions about this stuff.

Interesting. Could you please provide a link or pertinent keywords for a search on the TIA website?

.
https://www.traditioninaction.org/HotTopics/g33ht_Decipher.htm
.
Encouraged by the verdict of a famed Spanish graphologist affirming the authenticity of the Sister Lucy’s handwriting in the “Third Secret’ of Fatima we posted in April 2010 on our website, I have returned to analyze it more carefully.

Note: To follow this analysis in an easier way, print the larger text here

I always had suspicions regarding the date April 1, 1944 (line 1), April Fools’ Day, which most probably should have been January 4, 1944, and by the ill-sounding expression “the Cathedral of Rome” (line 21), which to make sense should be “Cathedra or Chair of Rome” signifying the Holy See. Some days ago I started to scrutinize that “Third Secret” looking for more traces of a possible falsification.


I found some and worked with them. It is the fruit of this labor that I pass on to my readers in this article.

Before starting, let me say that the analysis that follows has four presuppositions:
....
.
What follows is an amazing exercise in detective work by Atlia Sinke-Guimaraes -- the likes of which is frankly hard to believe exists online. I have read it and re-read it several times, and while I don't know Portuguese, I have no doubts in the ability of this scholar and warrior of the Church to fully analyze this docuмent. You should find it worth your time.
.
In point 3 of 4 that follows "presuppositions," he has this disclaimer, ...
.
If a falsifier is present, he used a non-electronic photographic system of cutting and pasting pieces of her writings in a different order from the original. The goal of his alterations would be to maintain the same handwriting but scramble the meanings of some parts. I have no idea about the tools or the method he would have employed. I will just be analyzing the fruit of his work.
.
...which I always have thought leaves open the door for some future article exploring whatever "tools or method" was employed to accomplish this deception. I don't know whose project that will be, but it seems closely related to the recent study undertaken by Dr. Peter Chojnowski regarding the two sets of Sr. Lucia photographs and fake Sr. Lucy.