What steps would law enforcement or journalists take to independently verify audio testimony like Sasha Riley’s?
Executive summary
To independently verify an audio testimony like Sasha Riley’s, investigators follow a layered process: secure and document the recording’s provenance, subject the file to forensic analysis and authenticated transcription, and corroborate the content with external evidence and legal processes before relying on it publicly or in court [1] [2]. Journalists mirror many of those steps but substitute subpoena power for reporting techniques and emphasize transparent documentation for readers [3] [4].
1. Evidence intake and chain-of-custody check
The first step is administrative but decisive: confirm how the recording was created, who has handled it and obtain original files or verified copies, because courts and investigators require an unbroken chain of custody to establish authenticity and admissibility [1] [5]. Law enforcement follows formal evidence‑handling protocols and may use LEVA or other standards to verify the integrity of digital media; journalists should ask sources for metadata, original device files, and contemporaneous logs that document transfer [6] [1].
2. Preservation and technical metadata analysis
Once the original or a verified copy is secured, technicians extract and preserve technical metadata — file headers, timestamps, device model identifiers and encoding artifacts — to detect edits, format conversions or re‑encodings that suggest tampering [6] [2]. Video‑oriented evidentiary doctrines such as the “silent witness” principle show why a demonstrably reliable recording process can be admitted as substantive proof, and the same logic drives scrutiny of audio files’ digital provenance [7] [6].
3. Forensic audio authentication
If metadata or provenance raise questions, agencies or newsrooms send the file to a qualified forensic audio analyst who performs waveform analysis, spectrographic inspection, and splice detection to detect edits or synthetic generation, and who can opine on authenticity in court or in journalism disclosure [8] [2]. Analysts also evaluate ambient noise signatures and other non‑speech cues to test whether sections were overlaid or reassembled, and their methods are accepted in prosecutorial and defense practice when properly documented [8] [9].
4. Voice identification and comparative samples
To attribute speech to a named speaker, examiners compare the questioned recording to controlled voice samples taken from the alleged speaker under supervised conditions; this in‑person sampling and expert comparison are standard practice to support identity determinations, though courts treat such testimony cautiously and alongside other evidence [9] [8]. Journalists may attempt to obtain voluntary contemporaneous samples or corroborating interviews; law enforcement can compel samples via legal process where permitted [3] [9].
5. Transcription, verification and redaction
Accurate, certified transcripts are indispensable: specialists produce verbatim transcripts and annotate uncertainties, and investigators use human‑reviewed transcription to spot inconsistencies or surprising claims that merit deeper probe [4] [1]. Tools that sync transcripts with audio speed investigative work, but human review remains the gold standard for legal accuracy, and chains of custody must cover both audio and transcript artifacts to prevent later challenges [10] [4] [1].
6. Corroboration, legal review and public reporting
An authenticated recording still requires corroboration: eyewitness accounts, timestamps from other sensors or communications, documentary records, and independent witnesses are used to build context and to test claims of intent or chronology [5] [11]. Law enforcement uses subpoenas and international legal channels where necessary to obtain supporting records; journalists balance legal constraints (and consent laws for recordings) with newsroom verification practices and should disclose limits of access or unanswered questions [3] [5].
7. Transparency about limits and expert testimony
Both prosecutors and newsrooms rely on expert testimony and documented methods; when an analyst testifies to authenticity, courts expect detailed methodology, and journalists should publish how verification was done and where uncertainties remain. If public reporting omits that provenance and forensic work, readers cannot assess evidentiary weight; likewise, absence of publicly available corroboration should be reported as a limitation rather than an asserted falsehood [8] [2].