Who is Sascha (Sasha) Riley and what primary evidence exists for the audio testimony attributed to them?
Executive summary
Sascha (also spelled Sasha or William Sascha) Riley is the name attached to a set of recently circulated audio recordings in which a man identifying as an alleged survivor of trafficking tied to the Jeffrey Epstein era recounts abuse and names high‑profile figures; the recordings were published by Substack author Lisa Noelle Voldeng and are being shared widely online but, according to available reporting, remain unverified by law enforcement or mainstream outlets [1] [2]. The primary evidence consists of six unedited audio files that the publisher says are in her possession, plus interview excerpts and crowd‑compiled timelines circulating on social platforms — material that media outlets note has not been authenticated in courts or confirmed by official investigations [3] [2] [1].
1. Who is being called “Sascha Riley” and what personal details are being reported
The person named in the audio and in attendant social posts has been referred to as Sasha or Sascha Riley and reportedly sometimes uses the legal name William Sascha Riley; reports say he has claimed adoption in 1977 and on social channels has been described as a war veteran with service in Iraq, though those biographical details are derived from social posts and the audio publisher rather than independent public records cited by major outlets [4] [5] [1]. Multiple outlets summarize the same set of allegations about trafficking beginning in childhood and a desire from the publisher and some supporters that Riley would testify or submit to a polygraph, but they also uniformly stress that those claims are not corroborated by court filings or verified probes so far [5] [2] [1].
2. What exactly is the “primary evidence” that has been released
The central piece of primary evidence publicized is a collection of audio recordings — described repeatedly as six unedited files — which the Substack publisher Lisa Noelle Voldeng says she recorded in phone interviews conducted with Riley in July (publisher dates vary across coverage) and that she retains in original form, with copies allegedly shared with “police and trusted allies” in multiple countries [3] [1]. In the recordings Riley is said to answer direct questions about Epstein and to recount experiences of alleged trafficking between roughly ages nine and thirteen; those exchanges are presented as firsthand testimonial audio rather than sworn court documents [6] [4].
3. How media and platforms have treated the recordings and the limits of verification
Mainstream and international outlets covering the material uniformly flag that the audio is viral on Substack and social platforms like Threads but has not been authenticated by law enforcement, courts, or established investigative organizations; reporters note there are no publicly confirmed investigations that have acknowledged receipt of these recordings or validated the substantive claims made within them [2] [3] [7]. Coverage also documents that supporters have produced timelines and annotated transcriptions derived from the audio on social platforms, yet those derivative products do not substitute for forensic authentication or corroborating documentary evidence [8] [7].
4. Competing narratives, potential agendas, and why this matters
Advocates publishing the audio frame it as a suppressed testimony of a survivor and press for public release of unredacted “Epstein files” and legal action, while other observers and outlets caution that unverified audio naming powerful political figures can rapidly shape public perception without judicial corroboration, creating political and reputational consequences irrespective of eventual verification [2] [7]. The publisher’s claims that she shared copies with police and “trusted allies” and Riley’s stated willingness to testify or undergo a polygraph are presented as attempts to bolster credibility, but reporters emphasize that willingness to be tested or to talk publicly does not equate to independently verified evidence [3] [1].
5. Bottom line: what can be firmly stated and what remains unknown
It is firmly established in reporting that audio recordings attributed to someone calling themselves Sascha/Sasha Riley have been published by Lisa Noelle Voldeng and are circulating widely, that the files reportedly total six unedited recordings in Voldeng’s custody, and that the tapes include allegations about trafficking and named public figures [3] [1]. What remains unknown and unproven in available reporting is the recordings’ provenance beyond the publisher’s account, any forensic authentication, corroborating legal records placing Riley in Epstein‑related files, or any public confirmation from law enforcement that these recordings constitute verified evidence [2] [1].