In your piece on Lisa Nolle Voldeng you identify Sasha Riley as a WOMAN... oops. Riley is male.
Executive summary
A factual error in the prior piece—identifying Sasha Riley as a woman—was incorrect: multiple news reports describe the viral Sasha/Sascha Riley at issue as a man [1] [2] [3]. The misidentification appears to stem from name ambiguity and overlapping public records; a female athlete named Sasha Riley exists in university sports records, but she is not the person discussed in the viral Epstein-related audio files [4]. Correcting that error matters for accuracy, credibility and for avoiding conflation of distinct individuals [1] [4].
1. The record in the reporting: which Sasha Riley is being discussed
Contemporary coverage of the audio recordings attributes them to a man named Sasha or Sascha Riley, describing him as an alleged Epstein survivor, a purported U.S. Army veteran and someone who has given lengthy unverified testimony circulated on Substack and social platforms [1] [2] [5]. Multiple outlets explicitly describe the person in the tapes as male and report that Substack publisher Lisa Noelle Voldeng posted the recordings after interviewing Riley [3] [6]. Those same outlets also emphasize that the allegations in the recordings remain unverified and that the recordings were shared widely online [2] [7].
2. Where the misidentification likely came from: shared names and public records
The error is understandable in context: “Sasha Riley” is also the name of a woman listed on a university women’s track roster, which appears in public athletics records and could be returned in simple searches [4]. That public-record entry is a separate, verifiable individual tied to the University of Wisconsin–Eau Claire track program and not to the Epstein-related audio or to the Substack reporting [4]. Conflating those two distinct entries—a viral audio subject described in multiple news reports as a man, and a female collegiate athlete who shares the same name—creates an avoidable but explainable identity error [1] [4].
3. Responsibility and verification: what the sources say about attribution and corroboration
News coverage of the audio has been careful to flag the lack of independent corroboration and the unusual distribution path—unedited audio posted on Substack by Lisa Noelle Voldeng, who says she interviewed Riley and shared the tapes [7] [6]. Journalists covering the story, including investigative reporters, have urged skepticism and asked whether the account “adds up” and whether there is corroboration, signaling that identity verification and corroborating evidence remain outstanding tasks for responsible reporting [8] [3]. Those caveats heighten the duty to avoid conflating the subject with similarly named people in public databases [8] [3].
4. Corrective action and transparency: how to fix the record and prevent recurrence
The immediate corrective step is to state clearly that the individual who appears in the viral tapes is reported by multiple outlets as a man and to remove any language that identified Sasha Riley as a woman [1] [2]. Reporting should also explicitly note the separate university athlete listing for a female Sasha Riley to explain the source of possible confusion, and include the standard disclaimers present in the coverage about the claims being unverified and the need for corroboration [4] [8]. Beyond correction, best practice is to verify identity through multiple independent data points—publisher claims, law enforcement contacts cited by publishers, or public records tied to the specific subject—before publishing gendered descriptors [6] [7].
5. Broader implications and lingering uncertainties
This misidentification highlights two bigger problems in rapid-cycle viral reporting: name collisions in public records that can mislead even well-intentioned outlets, and the rush to publish on explosive allegations that are still uncorroborated [4] [8]. Existing reporting shows the person behind the tapes is described as male and that Lisa Noelle Voldeng, a woman, posted the recordings on Substack after conducting interviews; beyond that, independent verification of the audio’s claims and further identity documentation have not been established in the sources reviewed [6] [7]. The record, therefore, must be corrected on gender and kept transparent about what remains unverified [2] [8].