Riley Kiraly: Private Investigators, Removed Computers, Storage Units, and Epstein Defense Work

UpdatedSeptember 15, 2026

ByEpsteinWiki

Snapshot

Entity: Riley Kiraly

Entity type: Private investigative firm

Legal business identity: Riley Kiraly operated as a doing business as name of WHR Investigations, Inc.

Founded: 1979, according to the firm’s archived website and Florida corporate records

Corporate status: WHR Investigations, Inc. became inactive following a voluntary dissolution filed February 1, 2016

Principals: William H. Riley and Stephen N. Kiraly

Primary location: Miami and South Florida, with addresses appearing in Miami, Coral Springs, Tierra Verde, and Bradenton Beach records at different times

Primary Epstein connection: Investigative work performed for Jeffrey Epstein and members of his legal defense team

Most consequential evidence: An October 2005 Riley memorandum states that investigator Paul Lavery removed computers, directories, photographs, recordings, and other items of “potential evidentiary value” from Jeffrey Epstein’s Palm Beach home before police executed a search warrant. The items were transferred to William Riley for inventory and safekeeping.

Additional documented activity: Storage of Epstein material, cloning of computer drives, background investigations involving survivors and witnesses, attempted interviews, invoice and payment activity, and communications with Epstein and his lawyers

Federal process: William Riley and the Riley Kiraly records custodian received federal grand jury subpoenas in 2007 seeking the removed computer equipment and records describing the firm’s relationship with Epstein

Congressional scrutiny: In March 2026, House Oversight Democrats requested separate transcribed interviews with William Riley, Stephen Kiraly, and Paul Lavery about the removal, storage, and location of material taken from Epstein’s home

Criminal status: No public record reviewed for this article shows that William Riley, Stephen Kiraly, or Riley Kiraly was criminally charged for work connected to Jeffrey Epstein

Evidence caution: The record proves that the investigators possessed and worked with important Epstein related material. It does not, without further evidence, establish that either principal knew the full scope of Epstein’s abuse or committed obstruction of justice.

Why Riley Kiraly Matters

Riley Kiraly matters because the firm sits at the intersection of Jeffrey Epstein’s defense operation, missing digital evidence, private storage, survivor focused investigations, and disputed claims of legal privilege.

The central documentary fact is unusually direct. A memorandum written on Riley Kiraly letterhead states that investigator Paul Lavery entered Epstein’s Palm Beach residence on October 7, 2005, under instructions from defense attorney Roy Black. The memorandum says Lavery removed items of “potential evidentiary value” and transferred them to William Riley for inventory and safekeeping. The listed property included three computers, 29 bound telephone directories, a massage related directory, photographs, video recordings, identification documents, cash, and other material. See EFTA01733753.

Palm Beach Police later executed a search warrant and found computer monitors, printers, keyboards, and peripheral equipment, but the central processing units were absent. Federal prosecutors subsequently sought the removed computers and records explaining when and why Riley Kiraly had been retained. See EFTA00224253 and EFTA00222985.

The firm also investigated women connected to claims against Epstein. One 2011 email records Epstein instructing William Riley that he needed to “totally discredit” Virginia Roberts, now known as Virginia Giuffre. Riley responded that he would investigate a man and was already attempting to locate Giuffre’s mother. See EFTA00906588.

This combination makes Riley Kiraly more than a name in an invoice. The firm is part of the documented machinery through which evidence was removed, stored, copied, contested, and used within a defense strategy while survivors and federal investigators were trying to establish what happened.

Correct Identification and Common Name Confusion

Riley Kiraly is a company name, not the full name of one person. Its two documented principals were William H. Riley and Stephen N. Kiraly.

The distinction is important because online discussions have confused William H. Riley with other men named William Riley. Some 2026 social media claims linked the Epstein investigator to William Kyle Riley, a pilot named in unrelated allegations. The corporate record and the firm’s own archived biography identify the Riley Kiraly principal as William H. Riley. No evidence reviewed for this article establishes that William H. Riley of Riley Kiraly and William Kyle Riley are the same person.

Ellie Leonard’s investigation of the conflicting Riley identities demonstrates why middle names, corporate filings, addresses, occupations, and dates must be matched before assigning Epstein records to a person. The article also discusses a William John Riley. Researchers should treat every identity conclusion in that debate as subject to documentary verification.

This EpsteinWiki entry concerns Riley Kiraly, WHR Investigations, William H. Riley, and Stephen N. Kiraly. It does not attribute the history or alleged conduct of other people named William Riley to the firm.

Corporate History

Florida corporate records show that WHR Investigations, Inc. was filed on June 22, 1979. William H. Riley was listed as president, secretary, treasurer, and registered agent. Stephen N. Kiraly was listed as vice president in later filings. The company voluntarily dissolved in 2016. See the Florida Division of Corporations record.

Released invoices explicitly state that “Riley Kiraly is a d/b/a of WHR Investigations, Inc.” See EFTA00770884, EFTA00724586, and EFTA00724591.

An archived firm profile said Riley Kiraly had provided investigative and case preparation services since 1979. It described a local, national, and international practice serving banks, corporations, law firms, and insurers. The profile claimed a bilingual staff of 15 specialists and work in the United States, Europe, Central America, and South America. These descriptions came from the firm itself and should be treated as company claims rather than independent verification. See EFTA01247949.

William H. Riley

The firm’s archived biography states that William H. Riley joined the City of Miami Police Department in 1966. It says he spent eight years working undercover on drug smuggling and money laundering investigations in the United States, Central America, and South America.

The company profile further states that Riley was named Miami Police Officer of the Year and received a Gold Medal for Valor in 1968. It says he later served as a special investigator for Dade County grand juries and became chief investigator for the Organized Crime and Public Corruption Prosecution Unit of the Dade County State Attorney’s Office in 1976. According to the profile, Riley left public service in 1979 and formed his private investigative business. See EFTA01247949.

The released Epstein record identifies William Riley as the principal who received the property removed from 358 El Brillo Way, prepared the inventory, communicated directly with Jeffrey Epstein and his lawyers, maintained material in storage, arranged investigative work, pursued payments, and participated in later discussions about witnesses and accusers.

Former law enforcement experience gave Riley knowledge of investigations, warrants, evidence preservation, interviews, financial research, and grand jury procedures. That background makes the chain of custody questions more significant. It does not by itself prove unlawful intent.

Stephen N. Kiraly

The firm’s archived biography states that Stephen N. Kiraly began his investigative career with the Miami Police Department in 1969. It says he spent seven years working narcotics and drug smuggling cases, served on a United States Department of Justice narcotics task force, and worked as a Miami homicide detective. The profile also attributes more than 34 years of public and private investigative experience to him. See EFTA01247949.

Kiraly appears directly in a November 2005 firm memorandum describing an attempted interview of a woman identified as a person of concern to Epstein. William Riley wrote that he and Kiraly traveled together so each could witness what was said. See EFTA01246302.

Kiraly also appears in a 2015 email chain about a possible investigative retainer involving Alan Dershowitz. Kiraly wrote that the firm worked around the world, described himself as experienced in factual interviews, and stated that witness impeachment was a specialty. The chain indicates that future investigative work was not authorized at that time and that Kiraly was asked to submit a final bill. See EFTA00653271.

The public record does not establish that Kiraly personally received, cloned, or stored the computers removed from Epstein’s home. Those actions are attributed in the documents to Paul Lavery, William Riley, a forensic specialist, and defense counsel. Kiraly’s position as a principal creates relevant questions about firm knowledge and control, but it does not allow every act by William Riley to be assigned automatically to him.

Entry Into Jeffrey Epstein’s Defense Network

The released records place Riley Kiraly inside the legal and investigative response that followed the Palm Beach investigation. Attorneys named in connected records include Roy Black, Robert Critton, Martin Weinberg, Jack Goldberger, Gerald Lefcourt, Alan Dershowitz, Lilly Ann Sanchez, and others.

The firm’s work was frequently routed through lawyers, marked as confidential work product, or labeled as potentially protected by attorney client privilege. Federal prosecutors disputed blanket privilege claims because William Riley was not an attorney and Riley Kiraly was not a law firm. The government argued that ordinary billing, retention, and relationship records were not automatically protected. See EFTA00222985.

Private investigators commonly work for defense attorneys. They may interview witnesses, preserve evidence, check facts, locate people, research public records, and assist counsel in preparing a case. The existence of a defense retainer is not misconduct. The public interest here arises from the specific acts documented, especially the presearch removal of potential evidence, the later storage and cloning disclosures, and efforts directed at survivors and witnesses.

For the broader legal context, see Florida Investigation and First Criminal Case, Nonprosecution Agreement Era, and Alexander Acosta and the Deal That Stopped a Federal Epstein Prosecution.

Removal of Material From 358 El Brillo Way

The October 7, 2005 removal

The most important Riley Kiraly record is a four page memorandum from William Riley to Roy Black dated October 9, 2005. It states that Paul Lavery visited Jeffrey Epstein’s Palm Beach residence at 358 El Brillo Way on October 7. The memorandum says Lavery acted under Roy Black’s instructions and removed items of “potential evidentiary value.” Lavery then transferred the property to William Riley for inventory and safekeeping. See EFTA01733753.

The federal search record indicates that the Palm Beach warrant was executed later in October 2005. Federal filings said investigators found peripheral computer equipment at the residence but no central processing units. See EFTA00222985.

The sequence is critical:

Law enforcement was investigating Epstein’s abuse of minor girls.
The possibility of a search warrant had become known or anticipated within the defense environment.
A private investigator removed computers and other property from Epstein’s residence.
The material was transferred to William Riley.
Police later searched the house and did not find the computer central processing units.

The documents establish removal before the search. They do not establish precisely who knew the warrant would be executed, what legal advice was given, whether any preservation protocol existed, or whether the material was removed with corrupt intent.

The inventory

William Riley’s inventory identifies a large and sensitive collection. It includes:

Three desktop computers
Twenty nine bound telephone directories in several colors
Printed pages titled “Individual Directory Listing” with a Florida massage reference
An 8 millimeter tape with handwritten content descriptions
Nude and partially nude photographs of women whose ages are not established on the face of the inventory
Adult magazines and sexual devices
Numerous commercial and personal video recordings
A Florida concealed weapons permit and identification cards belonging to Epstein
A 2005 calendar
Personal letters, laboratory results, cards, announcements, and cash totaling $2,256

The complete document is available at EFTA01733753. EpsteinWiki does not republish the explicit inventory line by line because many details add little analytical value and the unidentified women in the photographs may include victims. Researchers should not download, circulate, or attempt to identify intimate images without a lawful purpose and survivor protective safeguards.

Why the inventory is significant

The computers could have contained schedules, communications, financial data, photographs, videos, contact information, or other records. The directories and massage list could have assisted investigators in identifying witnesses, employees, recruiters, or survivors. The photographs and recordings could have contained evidence, private adult material, or both. The inventory alone cannot establish the content of a hard drive or the age of a photographed person.

This is a chain of custody issue. The essential questions are who handled each item, whether forensic images were created, whether hashes or preservation logs exist, whether anything was altered or deleted, where the original computers went, and whether law enforcement ever obtained the originals or complete forensic copies.

See Missing Evidence Chain of Custody for the broader pattern of removed, transferred, delayed, or incompletely documented Epstein evidence.

The 2007 Federal Grand Jury Subpoenas

Federal prosecutors issued separate grand jury subpoenas to William Riley and the custodian of records for Riley Kiraly. The subpoenas were identified as OLY 63 and OLY 64 in federal grand jury matter FGJ 07 103 in the Southern District of Florida.

The Riley Kiraly subpoena commanded an appearance on July 10, 2007, at the federal courthouse in West Palm Beach. Its attachment sought three major categories:

All computer equipment and electronic storage media removed from 358 El Brillo Way
Computer equipment and storage media that belonged to Jeffrey Epstein
Records concerning the relationship between William Riley, Riley Kiraly, and Epstein, including retainers, employment agreements, billing, time records, telephone logs, calendars, communications, fee arrangements, and payments

See EFTA00224251.

An internal government email explained that Paul Lavery told investigators he had taken the equipment from Epstein’s house and transferred it to William Riley. Prosecutors then subpoenaed Riley and the firm. See EFTA00224253.

The return date was extended. According to the government’s filing, neither William Riley nor the records custodian appeared at the rescheduled time on July 17. Jeffrey Epstein filed a motion seeking to intervene and quash the subpoenas. The government responded with a cross motion to compel production and testimony. See EFTA00222985.

The released compilation at EFTA00178967 contains extensive motions, declarations, exhibits, proposed orders, and sealed filing records. It documents a sustained dispute over privilege, scope, standing, computer searches, and the government’s right to obtain the removed material. Some orders in the compilation concern sealing or permission to file declarations rather than the ultimate merits. Researchers should not mistake an order granting a sealing request for an order deciding whether the computers had to be produced.

No clear final merits order resolving every part of the Riley subpoenas was identified in the public materials reviewed for this article. Later records show that William Riley still described the computers and paperwork as locked in storage in August 2009. That later statement raises serious questions about what, if anything, federal investigators obtained in 2007.

The Privilege Dispute

Epstein’s legal team argued that the computers and investigative records were protected by constitutional rights, attorney client privilege, or attorney work product principles. Federal prosecutors challenged those claims.

The government emphasized that Riley was not an attorney and the firm was not a law office. Prosecutors argued that the computer equipment had existed before any defense relationship and was not converted into privileged material merely because it was transferred to an investigator working with counsel. They also argued that invoices, dates, retention records, and basic relationship information were not automatically privileged. See EFTA00222985.

The defense countered that compelling production of entire computers could expose irrelevant or privileged material and function like an overbroad search. The dispute therefore involved two different issues that should not be collapsed:

Whether the physical devices could be compelled from a third party
How investigators could lawfully search the data stored on those devices

Privilege markings demonstrate that someone asserted confidentiality. They do not prove that a court accepted the assertion. Likewise, a government argument is a litigating position, not a judicial finding.

The episode is part of the wider nonprosecution agreement litigation, where secrecy and delayed disclosure repeatedly affected survivors’ ability to understand the federal case.

The 2009 Storage and Cloning Email

On August 23, 2009, William Riley emailed Robert Critton, copying Jessica Cadwell, Roy Black, and Jeffrey Epstein. Riley wrote that plaintiffs’ counsel were seeking the computers and paperwork he had taken from Epstein’s house before the search warrant. He said the items were locked in storage and asked whether they should be transferred to Critton, Darren Indyke, or Epstein.

Riley attached the October 2005 inventory and photographs. He also wrote that Roy Black had directed that the computer drives be cloned. Riley identified forensic specialist Dave Kleiman as the person who performed the cloning and said Black would have the results. See EFTA00884246.

This email establishes several important facts:

Riley said the original computers and paperwork remained in storage in August 2009.
Plaintiffs’ lawyers were seeking the material.
The drives had been cloned by a forensic specialist.
Riley believed Roy Black had the results of the cloning.
Riley was considering transferring the items to a defense lawyer, Darren Indyke, or Epstein himself.

The email does not establish what ultimately happened. It does not identify the storage facility, provide forensic hashes, show the contents of the clones, or confirm whether the originals or copies reached law enforcement. It also does not prove that Riley personally removed every item, despite his shorthand statement that the material was property “I took” from the house. His 2005 inventory attributes the physical removal to Paul Lavery and the later transfer to Riley.

That wording difference is precisely why the full record matters.

Storage Units and Continuing Payments

Released records show continuing storage charges connected to Riley Kiraly’s Epstein file.

A September 2009 invoice includes a $490 storage charge and background research concerning an individual named Monroe. See EFTA00770884.
A December 2009 invoice lists $490 for New York storage. See EFTA00724586.
A January 2010 invoice lists two months of storage charges totaling $980. See EFTA00724587.
An August 2010 invoice lists four monthly Manhattan Storage Center charges of $490 each. See EFTA00724591.
In September 2010, Riley asked Jeffrey Epstein to have his accountant provide credit card information so Manhattan Mini Storage could bill Epstein directly. See EFTA02422897.
In May 2009, Epstein asked Riley for a copy of an unidentified person’s photograph. Riley answered that it was in storage with everything else and that he would retrieve it on his next visit. See EFTA00775146.

The Telegraph’s 2026 investigation reported that Epstein used at least six storage units in different locations over time and that financial records showed payments to Riley Kiraly. ABC News also examined evidence indicating that important material may have remained outside law enforcement custody.

The larger storage network and the Riley controlled material should not be treated as automatically identical. The invoices establish Riley related New York storage. The August 2009 email establishes that Riley possessed computers and paperwork in storage. Further documentation is required to map each storage unit, contract, access record, and set of contents.

Investigations Involving Survivors and Witnesses

The November 2005 attempted interview

A November 22, 2005, memorandum states that William Riley and Stephen Kiraly traveled to the Jacksonville area to interview a woman described as a person of concern to Epstein. Riley wrote that two investigators attended so they could serve as witnesses to the conversation.

The memorandum describes hours of observation near the residence, questions to a household member about the woman’s job and schedule, and an evening approach after she returned home. Riley introduced both men as investigators working for Jeffrey Epstein. The woman refused to speak, used forceful language, ordered them off the property, and threatened to call police. Riley’s memorandum says the investigators left. See EFTA01246302.

The record is the investigators’ own account. It shows that the woman did not consent to an interview and that the approach occurred at her residence. It does not prove a threat or illegal trespass. It does show how a young woman connected to the case could experience the arrival of two former police officers working for Epstein as intimidating, regardless of the investigators’ stated purpose.

Virginia Giuffre

The March 2011 email chain is among the clearest records of survivor focused defense investigation. Epstein wrote that he needed to “totally discredit” Virginia Roberts in connection with an English legal claim. He supplied allegations about her teenage years and directed William Riley to take instructions from attorney Martin Weinberg to preserve privilege.

Weinberg advised background investigation only at that stage, warning against actions that could be described as Epstein unleashing “armies of investigators.” Riley said he had ideas, would forward reports under privilege, believed Giuffre’s mother had moved to Arizona, and would investigate a man Epstein identified. See EFTA00906588 and the related production at EFTA00682423.

The thread proves that Epstein wanted to discredit Giuffre and that Riley participated in gathering background information. It does not prove the accuracy of Epstein’s accusations about Giuffre. Epstein had a direct interest in attacking her credibility. Her claims later became central to litigation, public accountability, and the conviction related record surrounding Ghislaine Maxwell.

Other background activity

Released correspondence shows Epstein instructing Riley in July 2009 to begin talking with the neighbors of Brandy Brinson. See EFTA00882718. Other messages involve address research, driver license information, credit reports, vehicle ownership, family members, and efforts to locate people.

One exchange shows Epstein forwarding sensitive identifiers and suggesting that credit reports might help locate members of a family. See EFTA00750382. A March 2011 vehicle search appears at EFTA00682265. A separate invoice records federal, state, criminal, civil, bankruptcy, and corporate research concerning Monroe. See EFTA00770884.

These documents establish investigative tasks. The available snippets do not always reveal who requested the work, the individual’s exact role, or what was done with the information. EpsteinWiki does not republish Social Security numbers, home addresses, telephone numbers, or other sensitive identifiers exposed in the source files.

The 2015 Dershowitz Retainer Discussion

In January and February 2015, Stephen Kiraly and William Riley participated in an email chain with attorney Kendall Coffey concerning a possible investigative engagement involving Alan Dershowitz.

Kiraly requested a $10,000 cost retainer so the firm could begin work. Coffey later wrote that there was no authorization to commit resources in Florida because sources placed the subject in Colorado. He asked for a final bill. Kiraly responded that the firm worked internationally, referenced his own police experience, described factual interviews as a strength, and wrote, “Witness impeachment is our specialty.” See EFTA00653271.

The chain confirms continuing access to Epstein related legal work in 2015. It does not establish that Riley Kiraly conducted a full investigation for Dershowitz or that the proposed subject was contacted. The email specifically indicates that additional work was not authorized at that point.

Billing and Payment Records

Riley Kiraly’s work was substantial and sustained enough to generate repeated invoices, payment reminders, storage charges, professional service entries, and legal billing summaries.

A Black, Srebnick, Kornspan and Stumpf billing summary identifies multiple Riley, Kiraly and Associates invoices and states “Total Paid to Riley” of $222,387.92. See EFTA01118488. The summary should be read carefully because it appears within a larger legal billing package and may combine invoices across a defined period or matter.

Other records show William Riley repeatedly asking when outstanding bills would be paid. An August 2009 exchange about June billing appears at EFTA02441374. An October 2009 request for payment appears at EFTA00771162. A June 2011 email sends updated billing to Darren Indyke and copies Epstein. See EFTA00917423.

The invoices matter for more than money. Detailed billing can reconstruct dates, subjects, staff initials, travel, research methods, storage locations, and communication patterns. A complete invoice set may reveal work that short emails do not explain.

Payment does not prove illegal conduct. It does establish a professional relationship and can help determine the scale and duration of the assignment.

Relationship With Roy Black and Other Lawyers

Roy Black appears at several critical points. William Riley’s October 2005 memorandum says Paul Lavery acted under Black’s instructions when removing property. The August 2009 email says Black directed that the computer drives be cloned and would have the results. Black’s firm also appears in billing summaries that include Riley Kiraly invoices.

Robert Critton received Riley invoices and the 2009 request for guidance about the stored computers. Martin Weinberg directed the 2011 background investigation involving Virginia Giuffre. Darren Indyke received billing and was suggested as a possible recipient of the stored material.

These records show an integrated legal and investigative structure. They do not establish that every lawyer knew every operational detail. Each person’s knowledge must be evaluated through the communication he or she received, the instructions given, billing reviewed, documents possessed, and testimony provided.

See Jack Goldberger, Kenneth Starr and the Campaign to Keep Jeffrey Epstein Out of Federal Court, and Alan Dershowitz for other parts of Epstein’s defense network.

2026 Congressional Scrutiny

On March 26, 2026, Ranking Member Robert Garcia of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform sent separate letters requesting voluntary transcribed interviews with William Riley, Stephen Kiraly, and Paul Lavery.

The letters sought information about the contents, removal, storage, and location of materials taken from Epstein’s Palm Beach home. They cited the October 2005 removal, the 2007 federal subpoenas, later testimony concerning the hard drives, and uncertainty about whether law enforcement ever obtained the material.

Read the official letters to William Riley, Stephen Kiraly, and Paul Lavery.

ABC News reported that the committee requested separate appearances and set an April 9 response deadline. Business Insider connected the letters to testimony from Darren Indyke and continuing questions about the Palm Beach hard drives.

No public transcript, sworn statement, or definitive committee announcement confirming completed interviews with Riley, Kiraly, or Lavery was located as of September 15, 2026. The absence of a public transcript does not prove that no private communication occurred.

Evidence Appearances

The following list identifies core records rather than every duplicate production.

EFTA01247949: Archived Riley Kiraly company history and principal biographies
EFTA01733753: October 2005 William Riley inventory of material removed from Epstein’s Palm Beach residence
EFTA01246302: November 2005 memorandum describing an attempted interview by William Riley and Stephen Kiraly
EFTA00224251: 2007 grand jury subpoena to the Riley Kiraly custodian of records
EFTA00224253: Government email summarizing the path from Paul Lavery to William Riley and the resulting subpoenas
EFTA00222985: United States response opposing Epstein’s motion to quash and seeking compelled production
EFTA00178967: Large compilation of filings, exhibits, declarations, and orders from the subpoena dispute
EFTA00884246: August 2009 email stating that computers and paperwork remained in storage and that the drives had been cloned
EFTA00775146: May 2009 exchange stating that an unidentified person’s photograph was in storage
EFTA00770884: September 2009 invoice for background research and storage
EFTA00724586: December 2009 New York storage invoice
EFTA00724587: January 2010 storage invoice
EFTA00724591: August 2010 invoice listing four Manhattan Storage Center charges
EFTA02422897: September 2010 request for Epstein’s accountant to arrange direct Manhattan Mini Storage billing
EFTA00882718: July 2009 instruction to speak with Brandy Brinson’s neighbors
EFTA00750382: June 2009 location research using driver license and credit information
EFTA00682265: March 2011 vehicle ownership information forwarded to Epstein
EFTA00906588: March 2011 thread in which Epstein directs Riley to discredit Virginia Roberts
EFTA00682423: Related production of the Virginia Roberts background investigation thread
EFTA00653271: 2015 discussion of a possible Dershowitz related investigative retainer
EFTA01118488: Legal billing summary identifying multiple Riley Kiraly invoices and total payments
EFTA02441374: August 2009 payment follow up
EFTA00771162: October 2009 request for outstanding invoice payment
EFTA00917423: June 2011 billing communication to Darren Indyke with Epstein copied

Multiple EFTA numbers may represent duplicates, alternate productions, attachments, or the same communication obtained from different custodians. Duplicate records can strengthen provenance, but they are not separate events.

Legal and Ethical Context

Defense investigators have a lawful and necessary role. Every accused person is entitled to counsel, factual investigation, evidence review, and witness preparation. Interviewing a witness, conducting a background check, or preserving a computer for counsel is not automatically improper.

The concerns arise when investigative activity affects evidence access or survivor safety. Relevant questions include:

Was material preserved exactly as found?
Was removal intended to prevent lawful seizure?
Did anyone delete, alter, conceal, or destroy information?
Were investigators responding to a valid defense request or participating in obstruction?
Were survivor contacts voluntary, truthful, and noncoercive?
Was private information obtained and used lawfully?
Were privilege claims specific and valid, or used to delay access to nonprivileged evidence?

The released record answers the possession question more clearly than the intent question. Riley had the material. The drives were cloned. The originals remained in storage years later. The record reviewed here does not establish beyond reasonable doubt why the material was removed or whether it was withheld unlawfully.

No public criminal charge against Riley, Kiraly, or the firm was located. A subpoena, a congressional interview request, or an investigator’s possession of evidence does not itself establish criminal guilt.

Established Facts, Allegations, and Unresolved Claims

Established by records

Riley Kiraly operated as a private investigative firm and a doing business as name of WHR Investigations, Inc.
William H. Riley and Stephen N. Kiraly were the firm’s principals.
Paul Lavery removed computers and other potentially evidentiary material from Epstein’s Palm Beach residence under instructions attributed to Roy Black.
Lavery transferred the items to William Riley for inventory and safekeeping.
Federal investigators later subpoenaed William Riley and Riley Kiraly for computers and relationship records.
Epstein’s lawyers litigated against the subpoenas and asserted privilege and constitutional objections.
William Riley wrote in August 2009 that the computers and paperwork remained locked in storage.
Riley wrote that the drives had been cloned by Dave Kleiman under Roy Black’s direction.
Invoices document ongoing storage and investigative charges.
William Riley participated in background work intended by Epstein to discredit Virginia Giuffre.
William Riley and Stephen Kiraly attempted to interview a woman connected to Epstein in November 2005.
House Oversight Democrats requested interviews with Riley, Kiraly, and Lavery in 2026.

Allegations or litigating positions

Federal prosecutors argued that the material was removed in advance of the warrant and should be compelled from the investigators.
Epstein’s lawyers argued that production implicated privilege, work product, constitutional rights, and overbreadth concerns.
Reporting has suggested that the storage system may have kept important evidence beyond law enforcement reach.
Darren Indyke reportedly told Congress that he learned the drives were held by Riley Kiraly, while denying knowledge of the storage units.

These statements require attribution because they reflect legal positions, testimony, or reporting rather than a complete judicial finding.

Not established by the reviewed record

That William Riley or Stephen Kiraly knew the full scope of Epstein’s trafficking operation
That either principal viewed every file on the removed computers
That the computer clones were altered, destroyed, or used for blackmail
That every item in the inventory remained together in one storage unit
That law enforcement never obtained any copy of any drive
That Riley or Kiraly committed obstruction, witness tampering, or another crime
That William H. Riley is the same person as William Kyle Riley or any other similarly named person discussed online

Timeline

1966: According to the firm’s biography, William H. Riley joins the Miami Police Department.

1969: According to the firm’s biography, Stephen N. Kiraly begins his Miami police career.

1976: The company biography says William Riley becomes chief investigator for a Dade County organized crime and public corruption prosecution unit.

1979: WHR Investigations, Inc. is incorporated in Florida. The firm later markets its services under the name Riley Kiraly.

October 7, 2005: Paul Lavery removes computers and other items from 358 El Brillo Way under instructions attributed to Roy Black, then transfers them to William Riley.

October 9, 2005: William Riley prepares the four page inventory.

October 2005: Palm Beach Police executes a search warrant at Epstein’s home and does not find the computer central processing units described in later federal filings.

November 21, 2005: William Riley and Stephen Kiraly attempt to interview a woman identified as a person of concern to Epstein.

June 18, 2007: Federal grand jury subpoenas are prepared for William Riley and the Riley Kiraly custodian of records.

July 2007: The subpoena return date is extended. Epstein moves to intervene and quash. The government seeks compelled testimony and production.

May 2009: Riley says an unidentified person’s photograph is in storage with other material.

August 2009: Riley writes that the computers and paperwork remain locked in storage and reveals that the drives were cloned.

September 2009 through August 2010: Invoices record recurring storage charges, including New York and Manhattan Storage Center entries.

September 2010: Riley asks Epstein to arrange direct credit card billing for Manhattan Mini Storage.

March 2011: Epstein instructs Riley to discredit Virginia Roberts. Riley conducts or proposes background research under Martin Weinberg’s direction.

June 2011: Riley sends billing to Darren Indyke and copies Epstein.

January through February 2015: The principals discuss a possible Dershowitz related engagement. Additional work is not authorized at that stage.

February 1, 2016: WHR Investigations, Inc. files a voluntary dissolution and becomes inactive.

February through March 2026: New reporting focuses on Epstein’s storage units and the removed Palm Beach computers.

March 26, 2026: House Oversight Democrats request separate transcribed interviews with William Riley, Stephen Kiraly, and Paul Lavery.

September 15, 2026: No public interview transcript or final congressional account from the three investigators has been located.

Associated People and Entities

Jeffrey Epstein: Client or ultimate subject of the firm’s investigative work.

William H. Riley: Firm principal who received, inventoried, stored, and communicated about removed Epstein material.

Stephen N. Kiraly: Firm principal who participated in at least one attempted interview and later retainer discussions.

Paul Lavery: Investigator identified as the person who physically removed material from 358 El Brillo Way and transferred it to Riley.

Roy Black: Epstein defense attorney identified as directing the removal through Lavery and the cloning of computer drives.

Robert Critton: Attorney who received firm invoices and Riley’s request for instructions about stored material.

Martin Weinberg: Epstein attorney who directed background investigation involving Virginia Giuffre and advised maintaining privilege.

Darren Indyke: Epstein lawyer and estate executor who received Riley billing and was proposed as a possible recipient of stored material.

Dave Kleiman: Forensic specialist whom Riley identified as having cloned the removed computer drives.

Virginia Giuffre: Survivor whom Epstein instructed Riley to discredit through background investigation.

Alan Dershowitz: Epstein lawyer and later subject of a 2015 possible investigative retainer discussion involving the firm.

WHR Investigations, Inc.: Florida corporation under which Riley Kiraly operated.

Black, Srebnick, Kornspan and Stumpf: Law firm whose billing materials contain Riley Kiraly charges and payment information.

Palm Beach Police Department: Local agency that investigated Epstein and executed the 2005 search warrant.

Federal Bureau of Investigation: Federal agency involved in the later investigation and grand jury process.

House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform: Congressional committee whose Democratic members requested interviews in 2026.

Questions for Further Investigation

Who first decided that computers and other material should be removed from 358 El Brillo Way before the police search?
When did Roy Black, Paul Lavery, William Riley, Stephen Kiraly, Jeffrey Epstein, and other defense personnel learn that a search warrant was possible or imminent?
What written instructions governed the removal, inventory, handling, preservation, and return of the property?
Did William Riley or Riley Kiraly create a complete chain of custody log for every item listed in EFTA01733753?
Where were the original computers stored from October 2005 onward?
Which facility held the material described in the August 2009 email, and was it the same facility reflected in the later Manhattan invoices?
Who rented each storage unit, who paid each bill, and who had keys or access credentials?
What were the make, model, serial number, capacity, creation date, and hash value of every original drive and clone?
Does Dave Kleiman’s forensic work file survive, including imaging logs, software records, hashes, notes, invoices, and transfer documentation?
What exactly did Roy Black receive as the “results” of the cloning?
Did federal investigators ever obtain the physical computers, forensic images, directories, photographs, tapes, massage list, or other material identified in the inventory?
What was the final judicial resolution of grand jury subpoenas OLY 63 and OLY 64?
If the subpoenas were enforced, what was produced, when was it produced, and what was withheld?
If the subpoenas were narrowed or quashed, what legal ruling controlled the result?
Why did Riley state in August 2009 that the computers and paperwork remained in storage if federal prosecutors had sought them in 2007?
What did plaintiffs’ counsel request in 2009, and did the firm comply?
To whom were the stored items ultimately transferred?
What became of the 29 telephone directories and massage related directory pages?
Were the unidentified photographs and videos ever reviewed by investigators trained to identify child sexual abuse material or trafficking evidence?
Which survivors, witnesses, relatives, lawyers, journalists, or associates were investigated by Riley Kiraly?
What reports did Riley send to Martin Weinberg or other Epstein attorneys concerning Virginia Giuffre?
Did any contact with survivors or witnesses involve surveillance, pressure, threats, offers, deception, or attempts to influence testimony?
What lawful basis and permissible purpose supported the use of credit reports, driver license information, vehicle records, and sensitive identifiers?
What work is represented by every invoice included in the $222,387.92 total paid to Riley?
Did William Riley, Stephen Kiraly, or Paul Lavery respond to the March 2026 congressional requests?
If interviews occurred, when will transcripts and supporting exhibits be released?
Does the House committee possess additional Riley Kiraly invoices, reports, storage contracts, access logs, or forensic records that have not been published?
Were any materials removed from Epstein properties outside Palm Beach by Riley Kiraly personnel?
Did the firm perform work for Epstein after the 2015 correspondence or through another corporate entity after WHR Investigations dissolved?
What safeguards can courts and investigators adopt to ensure that evidence transferred to defense investigators remains preserved and available to lawful process?

Sources

Primary evidence and official records

Reporting and independent analysis

Related EpsteinWiki research

PostedJune 30, 2026