What public records (police reports, FBI files, congressional testimony) are available that relate to Sascha/Sasha Riley’s claims?
Executive summary
The publicly available record tied directly to William “Sascha/Sasha” Riley currently consists primarily of six audio recordings published on Substack and widely shared by the publisher, who says copies were also given to police and “trusted allies” [1] and who provided the recordings to a Canadian journalist [2]. Multiple secondary reports and commentators say Riley alleges a paper trail—CPS records, local police reports, FBI files, hospital and military documents—and that some of those records can be requested or FOIA’d, but independent verification in public archives or the recently declassified Epstein documents has not been demonstrated [2] [3] [4].
1. The core public artifact: audio testimony and its custody
The single concrete public record repeatedly cited across the coverage is the set of six unedited audio interviews posted on Substack by Lisa Noelle Voldeng, which she says remain in her custody and which she distributed to law enforcement and allies in multiple countries [1]; Tracy Rigdon’s account likewise centers its narrative on “six recorded interviews totaling more than four hours” as the evidentiary backbone [2].
2. Local police reports and hospital records: claimed, not produced
Riley’s narrative and outlets amplifying it assert that local police in places cited by his timeline—Texas, Tennessee, Alabama, Florida and Colorado—generated reports (including a noted crime scene in Enterprise, Alabama where police allegedly collected DNA) and that hospital admissions and CPS interventions exist, but the public pieces publishing Riley’s testimony do not include scanned police reports, medical records, or CPS documents themselves [2] [3].
3. FBI files and alleged raids: FOIA paths and gaps
The materials circulating claim FBI involvement—references to “FBI basement raids in Tennessee” and that the FBI contacted Riley—leading publishers and commentators to urge FOIA requests for the bureau’s files; however, reporting also notes that the Department of Justice’s recently released Epstein-related documents are heavily redacted and, as of January 2026, do not clearly identify Riley or independently corroborate his account in the declassified set [2] [4].
4. Congressional contact and testimony: assertions vs. public record
Some outlets and social posts state Riley met with House Oversight Committee aides and even “testified before the Oversight Committee,” while others say he shared his concerns with congressional staff on a specific date; those claims appear in secondary reports and social threads but public congressional records, transcripts, or committee releases attached to Riley’s name have not been produced in the material summarized by the available coverage [3] [5].
5. Independent reporting and expert caveats: what’s missing from the dossier
Critics and independent observers who reviewed the Substack package stress that the package contains emotional, detailed oral testimony but lacks the corroborating documents—emails, CPS files, police reports, court records, or military investigative files—within the post itself, and they warn that without those paper trails the audio cannot be independently authenticated from public sources [6]; mainstream summaries also note the absence of court or DOJ verification of Riley’s claims [4].
6. Practical next steps for verifying the public record and realistic limits
Based on what publishers themselves say, the logical public-record avenues are clear: request CPS records in the named jurisdictions where permissible, file FOIA requests for FBI files (including any “basement raid” case files referenced), obtain local police reports from the municipalities named, and query congressional committees for staff or public witness records—but existing press summaries emphasize heavy redactions in the unsealed Epstein materials and state that, to date, reporters have not located those corroborating documents in public releases [2] [4].
All factual assertions here are drawn from the reporting summarized above; where reporting states claims (for example, that records exist or were shared with police), those claims are attributed to the sources, and where independent documentary verification is absent the sources themselves note that absence [2] [3] [4] [1] [6].