Is Sascha Riley a real victim of Epstein or is he lying
Executive summary
The available reporting shows that audio recordings attributed to Sasha (or Sascha/William) Riley make grave allegations of childhood trafficking and abuse tied to Jeffrey Epstein’s network, but those recordings and Riley’s identity and claims have not been independently authenticated by law enforcement or courts, and Riley does not clearly appear in the recently unsealed Epstein documents—so there is currently no confirmed public evidence that proves Riley is a verified Epstein victim or, conversely, that he is intentionally fabricating his story [1] [2] [3].
1. The claim at the center: what Riley says and how it surfaced
A series of unedited audio recordings circulating on Substack and social media purport to contain testimony from a man identified as Sasha or Sascha Riley describing being trafficked and abused between roughly ages nine and thirteen and naming high‑profile political and judicial figures as connected to Epstein’s network; the tapes were published by Substack user Lisa Noelle Voldeng, who says she has the original files and shared copies with “police and ‘trusted allies’ in several countries” [2] [1] [4].
2. What independent reporting and official records show (and do not show)
Multiple news outlets covering the viral audio uniformly emphasize that the recordings and Riley’s allegations remain unverified and unauthenticated by courts or law‑enforcement, and reporting notes that the names Riley mentions do not currently match indictments, court records, or verified investigations in the public record; recent reviews of the Department of Justice’s unsealed Epstein files do not clearly identify William “Sascha” Riley as a documented victim in those materials [5] [1] [3].
3. Supporters’ claims and procedural moves Riley reportedly offered
Publicity around the tapes includes claims from the publisher and some online supporters that copies were provided to authorities and that Riley has offered to testify publicly and submit to a lie‑detector test; those claims have driven rapid spread of the audio and calls for fuller declassification of Epstein files to corroborate or refute Riley’s account [2] [6].
4. Skepticism, inconsistencies, and gaps flagged by reporters and critics
News outlets flag inconsistencies in online accounts about Riley’s biography (variations in name spelling, adoption date, military service) and warn the audience that the recordings themselves lack chain‑of‑custody proof and independent authentication; critics also note that attempts by social media users to tie Riley’s name to entries in the Epstein trove (for example, references to a William “Bill” Riley described as a private investigator) remain speculative and do not constitute documentary corroboration of the abuse claims [3] [7].
5. The broader context that complicates certainty
Reporting also situates the Riley story within a larger debate about incomplete disclosures from the government: some lawmakers say redactions and missing material in the public Epstein documents leave gaps that make it harder to confirm or debunk late‑coming allegations, creating an environment where unverified claims can quickly gain traction—and where the absence of confirmation is not definitive proof of falsehood [8].
6. Bottom line assessment: not proven either way
Based on the sources reviewed, the factual record available in public reporting is neutral on whether Sasha/Sascha/William Riley is a genuine Epstein victim or is lying: there are serious, specific allegations in widely circulated audio files [1] [6], but there is no independent verification in court records or by law enforcement presented in the coverage, and the unsealed DOJ files do not clearly corroborate Riley’s presence in the Epstein materials released to date [5] [3]. Journalistic caution therefore requires treating Riley’s claims as unverified allegations that merit investigation rather than settled fact or proven falsehood, while noting that both proponents (who cite the recordings and reported submissions to authorities) and skeptics (who point to inconsistencies and lack of documentary evidence) have articulated reasoned positions [2] [3].