Have any prosecutors or the FBI publicly confirmed receipt of the audio recordings attributed to Sascha Barros Reily?

1. What the viral material is and who published it

The recordings in question are a bundle of audio files—prominently shared via Substack posts and social media—that have been attributed to a person using the names Sascha Riley, William Sascha Riley, and Sascha Barros Reily; these were compiled and promoted by independent publishers, notably Lisa Noelle Voldeng, rather than by established news organizations or official channels ^{[3] [2]}.

2. Media and verification status: mainstream outlets and watchdogs

Major news outlets and verification sites covering the story have stressed that the material is circulating as unverified testimony; reporting has repeatedly noted the absence of confirmation from courts, mainstream investigations, or law‑enforcement spokespeople about the substance or provenance of the recordings ^{[1] [4] [5]}.

3. What the reporting says about law‑enforcement contact or confirmation

Available articles and investigative summaries explicitly state that there has been no public confirmation from prosecutors or the FBI that they have received or authenticated the audio recordings; independent researchers and watchdog pieces emphasize that no such receipt has been announced by federal prosecutors or the FBI as of the published coverage ^{[1] [2] [6]}.

4. Absence of corroborating public records

Investigations into the viral claims have also flagged that no associated court records, police reports, medical documentation, or corroborating witness statements have been publicly identified to back up the audio’s allegations—an absence that reporting links directly to the lack of law‑enforcement confirmation and which keeps the matter in the realm of unverified public allegation rather than documented criminal evidence ^{[6] [3]}.

5. Alternative explanations and the role of platform dynamics

Analysts and critics documented in the reporting warn that algorithmic amplification and niche publishers can create the appearance of evidentiary force without traditional verification; the story’s spread through Substack, TikTok, Threads and other platforms has been characterized as a “verification trap,” where virality outpaces the kind of forensic identity checks, audio authentication, and records mapping that would typically prompt public statements from prosecutors or the FBI ^[2].

6. What would constitute an authoritative confirmation

A public confirmation from prosecutors or the FBI would typically appear as an official statement, press release, or court filing acknowledging receipt and, where appropriate, authentication efforts; none of the reporting cites such documents or statements having been issued in this case, and therefore there is no public, authoritative chain of custody or investigative claim in the record reviewed ^{[1] [2]}.

7. Competing narratives and implicit agendas

Coverage of the recordings is contested: proponents frame them as suppressed survivor testimony, while skeptics and disinformation analysts argue the package lacks independent corroboration and may be being used to influence public opinion; many of the sources compiling and promoting the audio are nontraditional publishers whose incentives—to build audience, advance a political narrative, or monetize virality—should be read into the context of why officials have not publicly validated the files ^{[3] [2] [6]}.

8. Bottom line

Based on the available reporting, there is no evidence that prosecutors or the FBI have publicly confirmed receipt of the audio recordings attributed to Sascha Barros Reily; the material remains in circulation as unverified audio claimed by private publishers, and no authoritative law‑enforcement acknowledgement or court documentation has been cited in the coverage ^{[1] [2] [6]}.