Has any law enforcement agency publicly confirmed receiving or examining the Sasha Riley recordings?

1. What the recordings are and why they drew attention

A bundle of six audio files published on Substack by Lisa Noelle Voldeng, attributed to a man identified as Sasha (or Sascha) Riley, contains sensational allegations tied to the Jeffrey Epstein network and the naming of public figures; the clips were presented as “unedited” testimonial interviews and quickly circulated on social media, prompting scrutiny and debate ^{[3] [4]}. Major summaries of the phenomenon note the recordings’ rapid spread and the gravity of the allegations, but uniformly underscore that the material has not been independently authenticated by reputable outlets or investigators ^{[5] [6]}.

2. Public law enforcement posture: explicit denials of verification

Across reporting compiled in these sources, the consistent factual position is that no law enforcement body has publicly authenticated the tapes; multiple outlets repeat that “not a single one of the claims has been authenticated by any courts of law and law enforcement agencies or reputable news organizations” ^[3], and that the claims “remain unverified and have not been authenticated by any courts of law and law enforcement agencies” ^{[5] [6]}. That repeated language in independent outlets constitutes the strongest available evidence that no agency has issued a public confirmation of receiving or examining the files.

3. The publisher’s claim she shared copies with police — uncorroborated

Voldeng, who released the recordings on Substack, has asserted that she possesses original audio files and “has shared copies with police and trusted contacts” ^[2]; that assertion appears in reporting but has not been verified by law enforcement or by mainstream media outlets cited here ^{[1] [2]}. Thus there is a claim from the publisher that files were supplied to police, but the available reporting makes clear that courts and law enforcement have not publicly confirmed that claim ^{[1] [2]}.

4. Possible reasons for official silence and reporting limits

Law enforcement agencies sometimes decline to confirm receipt or investigation of evidence for operational or privacy reasons — an explanation offered in past cases but not documented for this instance in the sources provided — and reporters note only the absence of public confirmation rather than proving nonexistence of any inquiry ^[3]. The sources repeatedly emphasize their limitation: they have “not independently verified” the authenticity of the recordings and therefore report the lack of agency confirmation rather than definitive proof that no agency has ever seen the files ^{[5] [6]}.

5. Why public confirmation matters and the risk of misinformation

The media coverage stresses that unverified, emotionally powerful audio can shape public debate rapidly; reporting highlights the danger that such material, if unauthenticated, can propagate claims that “take on a life of their own” absent corroboration from courts or law enforcement ^[3]. Given the seriousness of the allegations and the publisher’s public statements, journalists and readers are demanding transparent confirmation from official channels — a standard not yet met in the accounts surveyed ^{[1] [7]}.

6. Bottom line: what can be said with the available evidence

Based on the sources assembled here, no law enforcement agency has publicly confirmed receiving or examining the Sasha Riley recordings; the claim that police received copies comes only from the Substack publisher and remains uncorroborated by public statements or verifiable evidence in mainstream reporting ^{[2] [1]}. If agencies have examined the material privately, those actions have not been communicated publicly according to the reporting available; that silence is notable but not proof of absence, and the sources caution readers about the unresolved authentication question ^{[3] [6]}.