Have any names mentioned in the Sasha Riley audio been independently confirmed in Epstein-related public records since the audio’s release?

1. What the viral audio alleges and how it was released

The material consists of six audio recordings in which a person identified as Sasha or Sascha Riley recounts alleged trafficking and names several high-profile political and judicial figures, and the files were published on Substack by a user identified as Lisa Noelle Voldeng, who says the recordings are unedited and that copies were shared with “police and trusted allies” abroad ^{[2] [4] [1]}. Reporters summarize Riley’s claims as describing abuse between ages nine and thirteen and as referencing a network tied to Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell, but all of those accounts in the published audio are being circulated outside of verified court processes at this stage ^{[5] [2]}.

2. What independent public records exist about Epstein and which have been compared to Riley’s claims

There is a substantial public archive of authenticated Epstein-related materials — including flight logs, contact books, redacted case files and other documents released by courts and the Department of Justice — that mainstream coverage and specialists have used to investigate connections among Epstein, Maxwell and assorted associates ^[3]. Multiple news reports note that while authenticated Epstein documents list known associates and contain redactions, none of the reporting assembled here shows those official files have validated the specific names or narratives asserted in Riley’s tapes since their release ^{[3] [5]}.

3. What the news organizations cited here say about verification

Every outlet assembled in this review emphasizes that the Riley recordings are circulating widely but remain unverified; Times Now and Sunday Guardian explicitly state the claims have not been authenticated by courts, law enforcement, or established news organizations, and Hindustan Times and News24 likewise stress the absence of confirmation in indictments, court records, or verified probes ^{[1] [2] [6] [3]}. Those articles repeat that some names are spoken in the audio yet note a gap between allegation and legal or documentary corroboration — a gap the publishers identify as significant and unresolved ^{[6] [1]}.

4. What has been claimed by the audio’s publisher and by Riley, and why that matters for independent confirmation

The Substack publisher, Lisa Noelle Voldeng, has taken responsibility for releasing the tapes and has said they are in her custody and were recorded in July 2025, and reporting relays that Riley has offered to testify or take a polygraph according to the publisher’s account; despite those assertions, reporters note that no official investigative body cited in these articles has publicly confirmed receiving or validating the recordings or linking the named individuals to Epstein documents ^{[4] [2] [1]}. This is important because public records and court files are the standard sources for independent confirmation of allegations tied to criminal networks, and the sources reviewed do not report any such matches as of their coverage ^{[6] [3]}.

5. Limits of the available reporting and alternative possibilities

The coverage reviewed is consistent in its caution: it documents the existence and spread of the audio, the publisher’s claims about custody and sharing, and the presence of names in the recordings, but it stops short of finding those names in authenticated Epstein public records or official indictments; if corroboration exists elsewhere — in records not cited by these outlets or in investigations not publicly disclosed — it is not reflected in the reporting analyzed here, and therefore cannot be asserted as confirmed ^{[5] [2] [1]}.