Which legal or law‑enforcement agencies, if any, have publicly acknowledged receiving or investigating the Riley recordings?
Executive summary
No federal or state law‑enforcement agency has publicly acknowledged receiving or formally opening an investigation into the Sasha (Sascha/William) Riley audio recordings; multiple news outlets report that the recordings remain unverified and uncorroborated by courts or official investigators [1] [2] [3] [4] [5]. Claims that copies were "shared with police" or that agencies like the FBI have contacted Riley come from the Substack publisher and secondary reporting, not from agency statements or press releases [3] [6] [7].
1. Official silence: no DOJ, FBI or court confirmation
Every major report in the provided dossier emphasizes that neither the Department of Justice nor courts have independently verified Riley’s testimony or the recordings, and no law‑enforcement body has issued a public acknowledgement that it has received or is investigating the tapes [1] [3] [4]. Coverage across outlets repeatedly frames the material as unverified audio circulating on Substack and social platforms, and explicitly notes the absence of confirmation from federal investigators or prosecutorial records tying the recordings to any active criminal filings [1] [3] [5].
2. Publisher’s claims versus agency records: the gap
Lisa Noelle Voldeng, the Substack author who published the recordings, says she has the original files and has shared them "with police and trusted contacts," and her account includes assertions that law‑enforcement reached out to Riley; those claims are reported by some outlets but are not corroborated by any public statements from named agencies [3] [6]. Independent reporting and media fact checks repeatedly caution that publisher assertions do not equal official confirmation, and they underline that courts and mainstream news organizations have not authenticated the material [2] [4] [5].
3. Secondary claims of interviews and CPS reports lack documentary proof
In longer analyses and opinion pieces, Riley is said to have claimed prior interviews with the FBI at Fort Carson and multiple CPS investigations across several states; those are sourced to Riley’s own recorded statements and the publisher’s narrative rather than to released police reports or agency communications, and investigators or records requested by journalists have not surfaced to verify them [7]. Media summaries therefore treat those as unverified allegations rather than confirmed investigative actions by child protective services or federal agents [2] [7].
4. Why the distinction matters: media circulation vs. legal action
Reporting underscores a critical difference between viral distribution and an opened law‑enforcement inquiry: social media sharing and a publisher’s claim of having handed files to "police" do not constitute a public acknowledgement by an agency that it has received evidence or launched an investigation, and no such acknowledgement appears in DOJ, FBI, court, or mainstream press records in the provided reporting [1] [3] [5]. Journalists covering the story have repeatedly noted that names raised in the recordings are not connected to indictments, court filings, or verified probes tied to the Epstein cases [1] [4].
5. Alternative explanations, agendas, and reporting limits
Sources present competing narratives: the publisher frames the release as public‑interest whistleblowing and says investigations are "ongoing" or that contacts have been notified, while independent outlets emphasize the absence of corroboration and caution about amplification of unverified testimony; whether agencies have privately received material but chosen not to comment publicly cannot be confirmed from the reporting provided [3] [6] [2]. Analysts and critics cited in the coverage warn that viral claims can drive public perception absent documentary proof, and some commentators have flagged the publisher’s prominent role in the story as a potential source of bias or narrative shaping [7].
Conclusion
Based on the available reporting, there is no public record or statement from any named legal or law‑enforcement agency acknowledging receipt of or an investigation into the Riley recordings; assertions that files were shared with police or that agencies have contacted Riley originate with the publisher and Riley’s own statements and remain uncorroborated by independent agency confirmation [1] [2] [3] [7]. If agencies later issue official statements or documents, that would materially change the public record; the current reporting stops short of such confirmation.