Do the unsealed DOJ Epstein files mention any William or Sascha Riley and in what context?
Executive summary
The unsealed Department of Justice Epstein disclosures, as reviewed in late 2025–early 2026 reporting, do not clearly identify a person named William Riley, Sascha Riley, or Sasha Riley in a verifiable way; social media claims tie viral audio recordings to a “William ‘Sascha’ Riley,” but mainstream reporting notes no independent verification that the DOJ files contain corroborating documents [1] [2]. Some online observers point to ambiguous references to a “Bill Riley” in released lists or emails, but those interpretations remain unconfirmed by DOJ disclosures or independent reporting [1].
1. What the released DOJ materials show — and do not show
The DOJ published a large tranche of Epstein-related disclosures on its website, but reporters covering the releases emphasize that many documents were heavily redacted and that the newly available material did not, as of the cited reporting, present a clear, named match to “William/Sascha/Sasha Riley” in a way that corroborates the viral audio or personal claims circulating online [3] [2]. Times Now and Hindustan Times both report that Riley’s name and the viral recordings have gained public attention precisely because the DOJ and courts have not independently verified the recordings or tied them conclusively to specific entries in the unsealed documents [1] [2].
2. The social-media narrative versus what the files actually contain
Viral postings and a Substack leak of audio recordings triggered renewed scrutiny and prompted questions about whether the unsealed files mention Riley; the recordings were widely shared and attributed to an individual who identifies on social media as William Sascha Riley, but news outlets treating the story cautiously note that the recordings and Riley’s claims have not been authenticated by law enforcement or matched to identifiable items in the DOJ disclosures [1] [2]. Hindustan Times explicitly flagged that the information about Riley originated from social-media chatter and could not be independently verified from the released documents [2].
3. Confusing references and the risk of misattribution
Reporters and analysts have picked up on isolated references in the release—such as mentions of “Bill Riley” in some lists, depositions, or emails cited online—but both Times Now and other outlets stress that those references are being interpreted by social-media users without confirmation that they refer to the same person claiming the audio recordings, and such linkages remain unconfirmed by official sources [1]. Given heavy redactions and the sheer volume of documents in the DOJ tranche, misreading partial names or conflating different individuals is a real risk, and current reporting refrains from asserting a definitive match [1] [2].
4. Who amplified the recordings, and why that matters to verification
The Substack user identified in reporting as the person who published the tapes—Lisa Noelle Voldeng—played a central role in moving the audio from private circulation into public view, which in turn prompted public calls for full unredacted releases to confirm or refute the claims [2]. That dynamic—an online leak feeding a viral narrative—creates strong incentives for both believers and skeptics to find supporting evidence in the DOJ dumps, which can lead to premature conclusions about name matches when the official record, as scrutinized by journalists, does not substantiate them [2] [1].
5. Bottom line, with caveats
Based on the cited reporting, there is no verified evidence in the publicly unsealed DOJ Epstein files that explicitly identifies or substantiates claims tied to William, Sascha, or Sasha Riley; suggestions that a “Bill Riley” appears in witness lists or emails are unverified interpretations circulated online rather than confirmed entries linked to the person making the viral allegations [1] [2]. The DOJ’s disclosure portal exists as the primary source for researchers [3], but because of redactions and the limits of current reporting, journalists cannot affirmatively say the files do or do not contain relevant, corroborating documentation naming Riley without further, authoritative disclosure.