Has any reputable forensic audio lab publicly analyzed the Sasha/Sascha Riley recordings and released a report?

1. What the viral material is and who released it

The material circulating online comprises six audio recordings published by a Substack account and attributed to a person identified as Sasha or Sascha Riley; the publisher, Lisa Noelle Voldeng, says the files are unedited and that she conducted phone interviews in July 2025 and retains the original audio ^{[1] [2] [3]}.

2. Publisher’s claims vs. independent verification

Voldeng and attendant write‑ups assert the recordings were released “in the public interest,” that Riley is willing to testify and take a polygraph, and that copies were shared with police and “trusted allies” in several countries, but multiple reports emphasize that none of the substantive allegations in the audio have been authenticated by courts, law enforcement agencies, or mainstream news organizations cited here ^{[1] [4] [3]}.

3. The absence of any named forensic lab report in reporting

Across the sampled coverage, there is no mention of a named, reputable forensic audio laboratory (for example, an accredited university lab, a commercial forensic audio firm, or a government forensic laboratory) having published a public technical analysis or report on the recordings; the articles instead focus on the content, circulation, and claims about custody of the files rather than on independent acoustic forensics ^{[5] [6] [1]}.

4. Why that absence matters — what a forensic report would show

A public forensic audio report typically documents chain of custody, authenticity tests (such as noise floor analysis, spectral editing detection, and verification of original file metadata), and an expert opinion on whether content has been altered or fabricated; none of the cited pieces include such technical documentation or quote a named forensic expert offering those analyses, leaving a gap between publisher claims and expert verification ^{[1] [2]}.

5. Claims about sharing with police do not equal public forensic analysis

Several reports repeat the publisher’s statement that copies were “shared with police” or with “trusted contacts” internationally, but those accounts do not equate to or document a completed, public forensic lab analysis; the coverage explicitly notes the allegations remain unverified and that no court filings or law‑enforcement confirmations appear in the record cited here ^{[2] [3]}.

6. Alternative perspectives and potential agendas

Proponents treating the audio as credible point to the specificity of Riley’s descriptions and publisher assurances; critics and cautious journalists highlight the lack of court records, indictments, or independent corroboration for the named allegations and note the rapid spread of unverified audio can shape public discussion before verification ^{[1] [5]}. The publisher’s interest in releasing the material and the viral momentum on Substack and social media create incentives to emphasize immediacy over formal forensic validation ^{[3] [7]}.

7. Clear conclusion and reporting limitation

Based on the articles provided, there is no evidence that any reputable forensic audio laboratory has publicly released a formal analysis of the Sasha/Sascha Riley recordings; the reporting documents the publisher’s custody claims and social circulation but does not show a named lab report or law‑enforcement disclosure of forensic findings ^{[1] [2] [3]}. If a reader seeks confirmation beyond these sources, this set of reporting does not cover whether such an analysis exists privately or has been completed and withheld from public release, so that possibility cannot be assessed here ^[1].