What official records (police reports, FBI files, military records) have been released publicly in connection with William Sascha Riley?
Executive summary
Public reporting into William Sascha (Sasha) Riley — a man whose recorded testimony alleging childhood trafficking has circulated widely — shows that no verified police reports, FBI files, or declassified military records tied directly to his accusations have been produced publicly as of January 2026; the material available in the public domain consists primarily of audio recordings, transcriptions, Substack reporting, and references to existing court and litigation records involving a William “Bill” Riley, whom Sascha names [1] [2] [3] [4]. Publishers and interviewers assert that corroborating documents exist (CPS reports, FBI reports, hospital records, military files), but multiple mainstream accounts emphasize those documents have not been independently verified or released for inspection [5] [2] [1].
1. Published testimony and transcriptions — the record that is public now
The most concrete public materials are recorded interviews and their transcriptions released by independent journalists and Substack publishers: six audio recordings and at least one full transcription of hours of interviews attributed to William Sascha Riley have been posted online and promoted as unedited, public-interest material [1] [3]. Reporting outlets describe these audio files as the primary source for Riley’s detailed allegations and note that the publisher released them claiming willingness to cooperate with tests or testimony, but also stress that these are journalistic releases, not official agency disclosures [2] [6].
2. Claims of official documents exist — what the publishers say
Journalists and publishers circulating Riley’s testimony explicitly state that supporting evidence purportedly exists and could include military records, CPS files, hospital documentation, and FBI or police reports linked to the people Riley names; those claims are presented as assertions by Riley and the publisher rather than as items produced from archives or law-enforcement depositories [1] [5]. Outlets covering the viral material repeatedly relay that publishers assert investigations are underway and that Riley or his interlocutors have indicated they possess or can produce corroborating paperwork, but independent verification of those assertions is absent in the reporting cited [6] [5].
3. Litigation and public records tied to the name “William Riley”
Separate from the audio materials, investigative writers point to extant public court and litigation records showing a William “Bill” Kyle Riley operating in a professional capacity connected to Jeffrey Epstein’s network — appearing as a private investigator, serving as a witness in litigation, and being named in victim testimony in earlier Epstein-related cases — and argue this proves at least that the named individual existed and interacted with the network [4]. The reporting that links those litigation documents to the broader narrative frames them as corroborative public records for the identity of a person Riley identifies, but does not equate those documents with police investigations, FBI case files, or military medical records directly confirming Riley’s allegations [4].
4. What official agencies have publicly released (and what they haven’t)
As assembled by multiple mainstream and independent reports, there is no public record from law-enforcement agencies or military archives released in connection with the substance of Riley’s trafficking claims: no authenticated FBI files, no confirmed police reports made public that corroborate the central allegations, and no verified military service or medical records published in the reporting reviewed here have been produced for independent scrutiny as of January 2026 [2] [5] [1]. Coverage consistently notes the distinction between the existence of unverified assertions of documents and the absence of agency-published or court-certified records that would substantively move the claims from allegation toward evidentiary confirmation [2] [5].
5. Stakes, alternative readings, and limits of the record
Supporters of publication insist the audio and related public records mentioning a William Riley justify further official inquiry, while skeptics and mainstream outlets caution that viral audio — however detailed — does not substitute for authenticated law-enforcement or military documentation; reporting makes clear both narratives exist in public discussion and that the asserted corroborating files remain unproduced or unverified in the sources reviewed here [1] [2] [4]. The files that would most decisively answer questions about official involvement — FBI investigative files, police reports tied to specific incidents, or declassified military medical/service records confirming wartime injuries or timelines — have not been publicly released or independently confirmed in the cited reporting, and the available material is currently limited to journalistic publications, court records referencing a similarly named individual, and voluntary interview recordings and transcripts [3] [4] [1].