What official records (police reports, FBI filings, congressional testimony) exist that corroborate Sascha Riley’s claims?

1. What the sources assert about official records

Social posts and timelines circulating online assert that Riley “contacted the FBI, filed local police reports, and testified before the Oversight Committee,” and those summaries are repeated by supporters and compilers of his alleged testimony ^{[1] [2]}. Lisa Noelle Volding’s Substack post claims she recorded Riley’s testimony in July 2025, and that she transmitted documents, including that testimony, to staff at Senator Ron Wyden’s office and to the House Oversight Committee’s office via a whistleblower channel on September 4, 2025; the Substack also states the FBI “questionably contacted” Riley and that Volding moved him out of the country for safety reasons ^[3]. Those are published assertions by advocates and the individual who says she collected Riley’s account, not publication of government-verified records ^[3].

2. What official records the provided sources actually include

Among the supplied material there are no copies, citations, or links to official police reports, FBI investigative files, or congressional hearing transcripts or filings that would serve as primary corroboration of Riley’s claims; the Threads posts and timeline PDFs referenced are commentary and advocacy that describe alleged filings but do not contain the records themselves ^{[1] [2]}. The only formal-government URL included is the FBI’s Vault homepage, which is a general FOIA repository; the result shown is a top-level entry and not a specific Riley-related FBI document ^[4]. Therefore, based on the documents provided, there are no verifiable police reports, FBI filings, or official congressional testimony available for independent review.

3. How proponents interpret available materials versus what they prove

Proponents treat Volding’s recorded testimony and the dissemination of that testimony to congressional staffers and to the FBI as de facto corroboration, asserting a chain of contact between Riley and authorities ^[3]. That chain, as described in the Substack, would—if government offices acknowledge receipt or if formal filings exist—constitute a paper trail; however, the provided sources do not include any acknowledgement letters, docket numbers, FOIA returns, official press releases, or congressional hearing entries that would demonstrate government action in response ^{[3] [4]}. The Threads users’ phrase “to my understanding” flags that claim as second-hand and not documentary proof ^[1].

4. Credibility, agendas, and reporting limits

The people and platforms promoting Riley’s account are advocacy-oriented: social posts and a Substack investigator both argue for the truth of the testimony and call for further release of “Epstein files,” which creates an advocacy lens that is explicit in the sources ^{[1] [2] [3]}. That does not mean the underlying allegations are false, but it does mean the materials provided here are not neutral government records and must be treated as claims until corroborated by official documents. The FBI Vault is a tool for vetting such claims, but without a specific FOIA-produced file number or link to a Riley-related entry, it remains only a place to search rather than confirmation that an FBI record exists in the public domain ^[4].

5. Bottom line and next verifiable steps

Based solely on the supplied reporting, there are no public police reports, FBI filings, or congressional testimony documents presented that corroborate Sascha Riley’s claims; the available sources offer assertions that such records were created or transmitted but do not produce the records themselves ^{[1] [2] [3] [4]}. To move from claim to corroboration the necessary next steps would be release or citation of—in government form—police report numbers or redacted copies, FBI file references or FOIA releases tied to Riley, or an official congressional docket entry, none of which appear in the materials provided here ^{[4] [3]}.