Saacha riley
Executive summary
Sasha (also spelled Sascha or Saacha in some accounts) Riley is the name attached to a set of audio recordings alleging child trafficking and abuse tied to Jeffrey Epstein’s network that went viral online after being published on Substack; the material and the claims within it remain unverified by courts, law enforcement, or mainstream outlets [1] [2] [3]. The tapes’ publisher and some commentators say the recordings are unedited and that Riley is willing to cooperate with investigations, but independent corroboration has not been produced in the reporting available [1] [3] [4].
1. Who is "Sasha Riley" in the viral accounts — identity and background
Reporting describes the narrator as Sasha or Sascha Riley, sometimes presented as William Sascha Riley, who reportedly says he was adopted in 1977 and trafficked from childhood; some stories also attribute a military background to him, but these biographical details come from the audio’s publisher and social posts rather than independent records cited in mainstream investigations [2] [5] [6].
2. What the audio recordings allege — scope and named figures
The six audio recordings that circulated on Substack and social media recount alleged trafficking and severe abuse beginning in childhood and explicitly name high‑profile political and judicial figures as part of the purported network, including references to Donald Trump in some clips and other named officials, though those names have not resulted in indictments or verified investigative links to Riley’s claims in available coverage [2] [5] [6].
3. Who released the material and what they claim about authenticity
Lisa Noelle Voldeng, a Substack publisher, is identified as the person who posted the audio and says she conducted phone interviews with Riley in July 2025 and possesses the original, unedited files, asserting she has shared copies with police and trusted contacts; the publisher frames the release as being in the public interest [1] [3] [4].
4. Verification, official response and the limits of reporting
Multiple outlets stress that none of Riley’s allegations have been authenticated by courts, the Department of Justice, law enforcement agencies, or reputable mainstream news investigations as of the reporting cited; journalists and fact-checkers caution that the viral spread of unverified testimony can shape public discussion before verification occurs [1] [3] [4].
5. Competing narratives and possible agendas around the leak
Supporters of the release present it as survivor testimony suppressed by institutions and argue Riley has offered to testify or take a polygraph, while critics and cautious reporters point to the political sensitivity of the names invoked and warn that unverified allegations can be weaponized in partisan information environments; the publisher’s decision to post material directly to Substack rather than through established outlets raises questions about motives, gatekeeping and evidentiary standards [3] [4] [7].
6. Why this matters beyond one set of tapes
If authenticated, the recordings would add to long‑running public scrutiny of Epstein’s network and could prompt new legal or investigatory inquiries; if they remain unverified and widely circulated, they illustrate how raw testimony distributed via new publishing platforms can create public pressure, confusion, and potential reputational harm without the checks of traditional reporting or prosecutorial review [1] [3] [4].
7. What is unknown and the next steps journalists and investigators should take
Available reporting does not provide independent corroboration of Riley’s identity, the events he describes, or documentary evidence linking named figures to the allegations; credible next steps would include verification of the audio’s provenance, corroborating records or witnesses, law‑enforcement statements about any received evidence, and transparent forensic assessment, none of which the cited coverage shows have been completed to date [1] [3] [4].