What forensic audio-authentication steps would verify the Sascha Riley recordings and who can perform them?
Executive summary
A methodical forensic audio authentication would require secure access to the original digital files, documented chain of custody, technical forensic analysis for tampering, and independent speaker/linguistic comparison — tasks that forensic labs and accredited private firms are equipped to perform [1] [2]. Reporting to date notes the recordings are circulating unverified and that the publisher claims to hold the original files and to have shared copies with police, but no public court or law‑enforcement authentication has been announced [3] [4] [1].
1. Establish provenance and chain of custody first — the procedural foundation
The single most important step is securing the original files and creating a documented chain of custody so any later technical conclusions will be legally defensible; reporting says the Substack publisher claims possession of unedited originals and that she shared copies with police and allies, which points investigators toward where to begin but does not substitute for formal evidence handling [3] [4] [1].
2. File‑level and metadata examination — the digital paper trail
A forensic examiner will extract and preserve the exact bitstream, read embedded metadata (timestamps, device IDs, application markers, codec information) and produce hash values to prove a preserved copy is identical to the submitted original; firms advertise the ability to verify mobile, voicemail and cloud recordings using these methods, which are standard in professional audio forensic work [2].
3. Acoustic and waveform forensics — spotting edits and splices
Analysts will inspect waveforms and spectrograms for discontinuities, abrupt noise‑floor shifts, transient anomalies and inconsistencies in ambient noise or reverb that reveal splices, overdubs or manipulations; reputable forensic labs describe these techniques as part of a rigorous authentication workflow [2].
4. Compression, codec and transcoding artifact analysis — tracing distribution effects
Because viral clips often pass through apps that re‑encode audio, examiners will separate evidence of post‑distribution compression from original edits by analyzing codec traces and round‑trip transcoding artifacts; this step is essential given reporting that clips have been widely redistributed on social platforms where such transformations are common [1].
5. Signal‑level and device‑fingerprint testing — matching source hardware
Where possible, specialists look for device‑specific signatures — microphone frequency response, hardware noise patterns and recorder artifacts — to determine whether a claimed source device could have produced the recording; private forensic companies offer such device attribution as part of their services [2].
6. Speaker‑identification and linguistic forensics — probabilistic voice matching
Independent experts in voice biometrics and forensic phonetics can compare the speaker on the tapes to known voice exemplars using both automated algorithms and human expert review, producing probabilistic assessments (not absolute identity) that can support or weaken claims; reporting notes claims of willingness to undergo further vetting, which is consistent with pursuing voice comparison if exemplars exist [5] [3].
7. Corroboration with external evidence — the investigative overlay
Forensic audio cannot prove the truth of substantive allegations alone; investigators will seek corroborating documentary, physical or testimonial evidence (records, flight logs, contemporaneous communications) because past fact‑checking of this narrative highlights a lack of such publicly surfaced corroboration to date [6] [5].
8. Who performs the work — accredited labs, private specialists, or law enforcement
Work should be performed by either accredited forensic audio labs or certified independent experts (private firms advertise services for mobile and cloud audio authentication) and, when appropriate, by law‑enforcement digital forensics units; reporting explicitly notes potential forensic review if original files are supplied to qualified experts or investigators and cites commercial providers offering courtroom‑ready analyses [1] [2].
9. Reporting caveats, alternative perspectives and disinformation risk
Multiple outlets emphasize the recordings remain unverified and note patterns that invite disinformation concerns; analysts and fact‑checkers warn viral distribution can distort clipped sequences and manufacture credibility, so transparent methods, independent replication, and public disclosure of forensic methodology (where legally permissible) are critical to avoid amplifying false or manipulated material [1] [6] [5].