Confessed Russian spy Peter Rafael Dzibinski Debbins' sentencing hearing is scheduled to begin at 9 AM today (16 April 2021) on Friday, 14 May 2021 in Room 800 of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia in Alexandria. Under General Order No. 2020-11, the court has authorized public participation via toll-free telephonic access. Note that creating audio recordings is prohibited (see p. 6 of the order).

According to the Listing of Numbers for Public Teleconference Access, the telephone number for proceedings before Judge Claude M. Hilton, who will be presiding over Debbins' sentencing hearing, is 1-888-363-4735 and the access code is 8281778.

As noted previously in this message thread, it was suggested in a previous hearing that Debbins' espionage came to light in the aftermath of a polygraph examination. Documentation of that has not been publicly released, although the docket includes a sealed transcript from proceedings held on 18 November 2020 and a sealed presentence investigation report.

AntiPolygraph.org's previous reporting on the Debbins case, including evidence that he beat the polygraph to penetrate the U.S. Army's Intelligence and Security Command (INSCOM) and the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) is available here:

https://antipolygraph.org/blog/2020/08/22/accused-russian-spy-peter-rafael-dzibi...

I am happy to speak with any journalist covering the Debbins case who seeks comment on its polygraph-related aspects.

George W. Maschke wrote on Apr 16^th, 2021 at 8:51am:



George, the above statement you made is based on speculation, not evidence.  Your blog from last August states:

"Debbins’ resume, made public on 27 August 2020 (after this article was first published), shows that this contract work was for the 902nd Military Intelligence Group, a counterintelligence unit falling under the U.S. Army’s Intelligence and Security Command (INSCOM) and headquartered at Fort Meade, Maryland. This position, for which Debbins needed a TS/SCI clearance, would have required polygraph screening."

This statement is not accurate.  Needing a TS/SCI in the Army does NOT require a polygraph exam.  Debbins would not have required one unless he was being read on to a SAP that specifically requires one.  You are merely assuming he would have needed one.

troll_of_truth wrote on Apr 17^th, 2021 at 4:16pm:


That is "if";  "if" is not evidence, it is speculation.  "he must have beaten the polygraph" is also speculation, not evidence.

George W. Maschke wrote on Apr 17^th, 2021 at 4:50pm:


again, this is speculation.  "Typically" is not evidence.
Your blog states your "evidence" that Debbins beat a DIA and INSCOM polygraph What is your evidence?

that's what I thought you'd say.  "Circumstantial" is not evidence.  It is speculative and makes assumptions.

A DIA Polygraph report is evidence.  An INSCOM polygraph report is evidence.  Polygraph charts are evidence.  A confession that countermeasures were used is evidence.  You have none of these. 

When you pass off speculation as evidence, all you do is lose credibility.

troll_of_truth wrote on Apr 18^th, 2021 at 1:37am:


Where is your proof?  Show the evidence.

troll_of_truth wrote on Apr 19^th, 2021 at 2:18am:


That's the very definition of speculation.  Thank you, you just proved my point.

I did not ask for proof from the government.  I asked for proof from George, proof that Debbins took and passed a polygraph given by either INSCOM or DIA to substantiate his claim of "another catastrophic failure of polygraph screening".  He already admitted that he has nothing more than "strong circumstantial" evidence, which is not evidence, but speculation/conjecture.