What specific public records or court filings exist that relate to William Kyle Riley and claims in Sascha Riley’s testimony?
Executive summary
Available reporting and social-media threads identify a handful of public-facing materials that are cited in connection with William Kyle Riley and the allegations in Sascha Riley’s testimony — notably commercial background listings, repeated name mentions in compiled Epstein-related documents, unredacted audio of Sascha’s testimony published by a reporter, and claims about military and FOIA records — but no verified court indictment, public criminal filing, or confirmed civil suit against a person identified as William Kyle Riley appears in the provided sources [1] [2] [3] [4].
1. What documents are actually cited by proponents of the allegations
Advocates pointing to documentary support say that Sascha’s raw, unredacted audio testimony was posted to Lisa Noelle Voldeng’s Substack and that a PDF timeline derived from that testimony has circulated online [3], and that the testimony—recorded July 19–24, 2025 according to one report—alleges corroborative materials including pornography films, CPS reports, FBI reports, and a circa‑2010 military report tied to a court‑martial [4]. These are presented as sources investigators should FOIA before records are removed or suppressed, but the claim in the reporting is that much of this corroborative material is “suppressed” and only “some is obtainable by FOIA” rather than already released as public court filings [4].
2. Mentions of “Bill Riley” or “William Riley” in Epstein‑related archives and compilations
Aggregated Epstein-document projects and secondary sites list multiple occurrences of “Bill Riley” or “Mr. Riley” in government or investigative materials related to Epstein — for example, an Epstein-focused entity index notes about a dozen mentions across documents and suggests one “Bill Riley” contacted witnesses or appears in redacted FBI materials and flight/archival records [2]. Those references imply Riley’s name exists in the corpus of Epstein‑case materials but the provided source is an extract/interpretation on a private compilation site rather than a direct download of an identifiable court filing or prosecutorial charging document [2].
3. Commercial background records and people‑finder listings
Commercial aggregators and people‑search sites show entries for individuals named William or Bill Riley with varying biographical details; one MyLife profile lists a “Bill Sascha Riley” entry with the kind of aggregated arrest/court/sex‑offender style fields such services display, and Spokeo returns numerous William Riley matches in Georgia — but these are commercial data products that do not substitute for verified public court dockets, and the sources themselves caution that absence or presence in their databases is not dispositive of legal status [1] [5].
4. Claimed law‑enforcement contacts, FOIA targets, and missing formal filings
Public social‑media posts and the reporting assert that Sascha contacted the FBI, filed local police reports, and has testified to congressional or oversight bodies, and that investigators have been instructed to obtain a military court‑martial file and supporting materials via FOIA [6] [4]. Those posts reflect assertions about existing reports and submissions rather than links to verified public court dockets, indictments, or civil complaints in which William Kyle Riley is a named defendant; in the documents provided there is no direct citation to an indictment, criminal complaint, arrest record, or civil filing naming William Kyle Riley in relation to the allegations described [4] [6].
5. How to interpret what exists vs. what is claimed
The available sources document that name occurrences and testimonial audio exist in the public conversation (raw testimony uploaded and circulating timelines), and that private compilations of Epstein‑era documents mention a “Bill Riley” in several places [3] [2], but they do not supply verifiable public court filings or docket numbers that directly tie a legal action to William Kyle Riley for the crimes alleged in Sascha’s testimony; the materials cited are a mixture of primary testimonial audio, secondary aggregation, and commercial background data, and the reporting itself flags suppression, FOIA retrieval, and incomplete public release as obstacles [4] [2]. Supporters cited in the threads treat the testimony as credible and urge pursuit of records; skeptics or legal observers would note the gap between testimonial allegation and an open, verifiable criminal or civil filing naming the person accused [6] [2].