Sascha Riley audio
Executive summary
A set of six unedited audio recordings attributed to a person identified as Sasha (or Sascha) Riley has circulated widely on Substack and social media, with the publisher saying copies were shared with police and “trusted allies” in several countries; the tapes contain explosive allegations tying Riley’s account of childhood trafficking to figures connected to the Epstein era but have not been independently verified by mainstream investigations or courts [1] [2] [3]. The files were released by Canadian Substack creator Lisa Noelle Voldeng, who says she interviewed Riley and that Riley is willing to testify or take a polygraph, while multiple outlets caution the material remains uncorroborated and has not been publicly confirmed by investigators [4] [5] [2].
1. What the recordings claim and how they were published
The audio clips—reported as six unedited recordings—feature a person identified as Sasha Riley describing alleged abuse and trafficking beginning in childhood, including claims that between ages nine and thirteen he became part of a network the recordings tie to Jeffrey Epstein and to named political and judicial figures; the material presents itself as first‑person testimony in interview-style exchanges [1] [6] [7] [3]. The recordings were posted on Substack by Lisa Noelle Voldeng, who says she personally interviewed Riley and that she selectively alerted allies, churches, police and officials after speaking with him [4] [5].
2. Who surfaced the tapes and what they say about credibility
Voldeng—a Canadian Substack author known for the newsletter Outlaws of Chivalry—is the publisher drawing attention to Riley’s audio, and she asserts Riley has cooperated with authorities and indicated willingness to testify or submit to a polygraph; news reports note Voldeng’s role but stress she is not an established investigative outlet and that the tapes have not been independently authenticated [5] [2]. Some social posts and supporters treat the recordings as credible and say Riley engaged with U.S. investigators and testified before an oversight committee, but major news organizations cited in reporting have not confirmed any official investigative acceptance or verification of the material [8] [2].
3. Media reaction, spread and verification gaps
Multiple international outlets report the audio has gone viral across Threads, Substack and other platforms, with widespread online debate; at the same time, journalists and fact‑checkers repeatedly emphasize that no court record or mainstream investigation has publicly verified the claims in the recordings and that newsrooms have not independently authenticated the audio content [1] [6] [2] [3]. Publishers claim copies were shared with law enforcement “in several countries,” but reporting notes that no official investigation has publicly confirmed receiving or verifying those specific recordings [1] [2].
4. Competing narratives and potential agendas
Supporters who have listened to the tapes—some survivors and writers—describe the material as harrowing and believe Riley’s account, while critics and cautious reporters warn that explosive allegations circulated outside established investigative channels can inflame public debate without the checks of verification; Voldeng’s selective release strategy and the choice of Substack as the platform create a tension between public-interest disclosure and the risks of circulating unverified accusations [8] [2] [4]. Coverage also highlights the political sensitivity of naming high-profile figures tied to the Epstein era, which means both genuine whistleblowing and potential misuse of allegations for political impact are plausible and must be weighed [7].
5. What is known, what remains unproven, and next steps
What is known from reporting is the existence of the six audio recordings, their publication by Lisa Noelle Voldeng, the content of Riley’s allegations in those recordings, and the viral spread across social platforms; what remains unproven is the recordings’ authenticity, the veracity of specific accusations naming public figures, and any confirmation from law enforcement or judicial records—issues reporters say require formal investigative corroboration or official statements before the claims can be evaluated as evidence [1] [2] [3]. The most consequential next steps cited in reporting are independent forensic authentication of the audio, transparent disclosure by investigators if they possess the files, and, if credible, formal testimony under oath or in legal proceedings [2] [5].