What public records or independent investigations exist regarding William Sascha Riley/Manuel Sascha Barros?

1. What exists: audio testimony, interviews, and transcriptions

The clearest corpus of primary material are six audio recordings of Riley’s testimony that were published by independent bloggers — notably Lisa Noelle Voldeng’s Substack — and transcribed by other outlets; those recordings and transcriptions are the basis for most subsequent coverage and researcher timelines ^{[1] [2] [5]}.

2. What independent researchers and bloggers say they found

Independent researchers and Substack authors assert they have compiled public records that place a figure named William Riley in proximity to Epstein’s orbit, and they report litigation appearances, witness references and alleged work as a private investigator connected to Epstein-related matters; these researchers explicitly caution that compilation of records does not, by itself, prove every element of Riley’s expanded claims ^[6].

3. Claimed documentary material given to authorities

Reporting sympathetic to Riley states he provided notebooks, adoption records, military documents and testimony to the FBI after contact in mid-2025 and that he publicly asked investigators to release what they had, but those accounts also say there has been no public outcome announced by authorities — no charges, no public confirmation of files released ^[7].

4. Routine public records and online presence

Routine, third‑party public records databases list a William S. Riley registered to vote in Duncan, Oklahoma, and social accounts tied to the name have been pointed to by commentators; proponents use these to tie the audio testimony to a named individual in civic records ^{[3] [8]}.

5. Allegations about other records and evidence — claimed but not independently verified

Several reports and viral summaries assert there exist CPS reports, FBI reports, and even pornographic films or images alleged to corroborate Riley’s story; those claims appear in secondary reporting and in the materials distributed by supporters, but respected outlets and fact-checkers have noted that these items have not been independently verified in public records shared with the press ^{[9] [4]}.

6. Independent verification and official investigation status

Mainstream coverage and fact-checkers emphasize that neither the Department of Justice nor courts have publicly authenticated Riley’s recordings or corroborated his specific claims, and some reporting notes that he does not clearly appear in the unsealed Epstein documents released in late 2025 and early 2026 ^[4]. At the same time, social‑media and activist responders — including people who listened to the audio and timelines compiled by volunteers — argue the testimony is credible and demands formal inquiry, creating a split between public conviction and official documentation ^{[10] [5]}.

7. How the public record is being used and disputed online

The material has produced vigorous online debate: supporters and some independent investigators compile timelines and claim they have shared materials with congressional offices and law‑enforcement whistleblower channels, while critics warn raw testimony can be misremembered, manipulated, or weaponized and stress the absence of corroborating documents in the published packages ^{[11] [10]}.

8. What this body of material proves and what it does not

What is demonstrable in public sources is the existence of recorded testimony attributed to Riley, independent compilations of related public records by bloggers, and routine civic records linking a William S. Riley to an Oklahoma address; what is not demonstrable from the reporting collected here is authoritative, court‑level corroboration of the broader trafficking network allegations or public release of the specific investigative files cited by supporters — those remain unverified in official channels ^{[1] [6] [4] [7]}.