What primary documents have been released related to Sascha Riley’s testimony (flight logs, police reports, polygraphs)?

1. What has been publicly posted: recorded testimony and a PDF timeline

The clearest, consistently cited item in the available reporting is Sascha Riley’s recorded testimonial interviews: audio recordings of Riley’s account have been posted unredacted by journalist Lisa Noelle Voldeng and circulated online, and at least one user assembled a PDF timeline derived from that testimony and linked to it on social media ^{[1] [2]}. Multiple social posts reference having listened to that audio and urge others to do so, treating the raw recordings as the central public material and the basis for efforts to pressure for more evidence ^{[6] [7] [8]}.

2. Claims of corroborative “Epstein files” and suppressed records — what sources actually say

Several pieces in the sample explicitly assert that corroborative documents—CPS reports, FBI files, military reports, pornography/video evidence, and other records—exist and are being withheld or can be obtained by FOIA or investigator request; Lisa Noelle Voldeng’s reporting particularly frames such materials as “suppressed” but “supplemental” corroboration for Riley’s testimony ^[2]. Social-media posts echo calls to “release the Epstein files” and to uncover related flight logs, police reports, polygraphs and medical records, but those posts are appeals and summaries rather than citations of released documents ^{[3] [5]}.

3. Absence of verifiable flight logs, police reports, or polygraph publications in these sources

Nowhere in the provided reporting is there a link, screen capture, or archive citation that demonstrates publication of flight manifests, official police reports, or polygraph results tied to Riley; the materials repeatedly referenced are the audio testimony and a user-created PDF timeline based on that testimony, not the underlying primary records ^{[1] [2]}. Calls to “confirm” names against flight logs or to see Riley’s polygraph are present as demands and speculation across social posts, which means the existence of such released primary documents is asserted conversationally but not documented in the sources provided ^{[6] [5]}.

4. Competing narratives and implicit agendas in the available reporting

The available sources are dominated by advocacy and amplification: survivors, writers, and social accounts express belief in Riley’s testimony and urgency to “bring down” alleged perpetrators or to force release of archived Epstein-related evidence, which creates a clear advocacy agenda in the social-media posts ^{[7] [3]}. Lisa Noelle Voldeng’s Substack reporting positions itself as investigative and indicates that additional corroborative material exists or can be FOIAed, an implicit claim that official repositories hold more records than have been made public ^[2]. These agendas help explain strong public demand for flight logs, police reports, and polygraphs, but they do not substitute for publication of those primary records in the reporting shown.

5. What can be concluded, and what cannot from the provided reporting

Based on the materials supplied, the only verifiable public artifact tied to Sascha Riley’s account is his recorded testimony (and derivative timelines assembled from that audio); there is no proven public release of flight logs, police reports, or polygraph results in these sources ^{[1] [2]}. It cannot be determined from the provided reporting whether such documents exist in official files, whether they have been redacted or withheld, or whether they have been shared privately with oversight committees—those claims are alleged or urged but not substantiated in the sample ^{[2] [5]}. Independent verification would require locating and reviewing FOIA disclosures, court or investigative records, or direct document releases that are not present in the supplied items.