Accused Spy Peter Rafael Dzibinski Debbins: Yet Another Catastrophic Failure of Polygraph Screening

[George W. Maschke]

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-dzibinski-debbins-evidently-beat-the-polygraph-to-penetrate-inscom-and-the-dia/

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

[troll_of_truth]

I never knew we could dial into a sentencing hearing!  They should make it a podcast or live video stream.  I will be watching this.  I still think Debbins's case, and some of the other cases I mentioned in this thread, are examples of a suspect making his or her final confession during the polygraph.  Thus, the polygraph is the final tool that caught a spy.  I still believe the government does not want people to know that a confession is the key to a polygrapher's victory.  Anyway, let's see what sentence Debbins receives. 

Earlier this year in February 2021, the Washington, D.C. International Spy Museum had this online event called "Spies & Spymasters Happy Hour", which included an NSA polygrapher named Thomas Mauriello. What is interesting is that the host of the event, Mark Zaid, says that federal polygraphers are fishing and trying to get subjects to make an adverse admission.  All the panelists nodded in agreement.  However, Thomas Mauriello rebuked Zaid's assessment of the polygraph, meaning Zaid was speaking the truth.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QA9oA5gkd_w&t=1h12m40s

[quickfix]

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:

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]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/legal-issues/green-beret-spy-russia/2020/11/18/a36d7e56-290e-11eb-92b7-6ef17b3fe3b4_story.html

This November 2020 Washington Post article says, "Debbins failed a polygraph test and subsequently confessed that he had been in contact with Russian intelligence for 15 years."

Does this prove that the polygraph caught Debbins?  Also, if Debbins took a polygraph for his job at anytime in the past 15 years, then he must have beaten the polygraph to keep his job and continue his espionage activities.

[quickfix]

Also, if Debbins took a polygraph for his job at anytime in the past 15 years, then he must have beaten the polygraph to keep his job and continue his espionage activities.

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

[George W. Maschke]

quickfix,

It is true that not all Army positions that require a TS/SCI clearance also require polygraph screening. However, according to Debbins' resumé, his job at the 902nd was as an analyst in support of counterintelligence cyber operations. This kind of work typically requires polygraph screening.

But even if Debbins was not required to pass a polygraph in connection with his contract work for the 902nd, he would certainly have had to pass one in connection with his subsequent contract work for DIA.

If you know otherwise, please explain.

[quickfix]

This kind of work typically requires polygraph screening.

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?

[George W. Maschke]

quickfix,

The evidence that Debbins beat the polygraph in connection with his DoD employment is circumstantial, but strong.

[quickfix]

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]

Hey quickfix,

You seem to be in denial that Debbins beat a polygraph.  Everyone who works at DIA has to take a polygraph. (see the faq "Do I need to take a polygraph test?")  Therefore, if Debbins worked at DIA, even as a contractor because contractors undergo the same clearance process as their government officers, he took a polygraph.  I found this article with proof of several other federal criminals who passed polygraphs as well.  The government is not going to publish a full unredacted polygraph report.  It is hard enough trying to get this through FOIA/PA.  The fact is, Debbins is one of many polygraph-passing federal criminals.  The polygraph is a joke.

[quickfix]

The fact is, Debbins is one of many polygraph-passing federal criminals. 

Where is your proof?  Show the evidence.

[quickfix]

I meant real proof, not a blog from a whining sniveling wannabe who never was.

[quickfix]

We, the antipolygraph community, can make deductions from news articles, court documents, and other information we find online.  We can surmise that people have passed the polygraph while hiding criminal activity.

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

[troll_of_truth]

We, the antipolygraph community, can make deductions from news articles, court documents, and other information we find online.  We can surmise that people have passed the polygraph while hiding criminal activity.

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

Actually, I think I proved my own point, quickfix.  If the U.S. government will not publicly provide the proof that you seek, what would appease your hubris as the most definitive proof?  Tell us exactly what you want to see, aside from U.S. government statements which will not occur.

[quickfix]

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.