What independent verifications have been made of the Sascha/Sasha Riley audio recordings since November 2025?
Executive summary
The audio files attributed to Sascha/Sasha Riley were posted publicly in late November 2025 and have circulated widely on social media, but journalists and specialty outlets uniformly report that the recordings and the allegations within remain unverified by independent authorities as of the latest reporting [1] [2]. The only named custodian of the originals is Substack publisher Lisa Noelle Voldeng, who says she conducted and holds the unedited interviews and has shared copies with police and contacts, a claim noted in multiple reports but not independently corroborated [3] [4].
1. What the publisher says — custody and provenance claims
The recordings were published by Substack author Lisa Noelle Voldeng, who asserts she conducted phone interviews with Riley in July 2025 and possesses the original, unedited audio files; she also says she has shared copies with law enforcement and trusted associates [3] [4]. That provenance claim is the central factual anchor offered publicly, and it is repeatedly referenced in coverage as the source of the material [1] [5].
2. What mainstream and regional outlets have independently verified
Multiple news outlets explicitly state they have not independently authenticated the recordings: Hindustan Times, News24, Times Now and others note the audio and the allegations remain unverified and have not been authenticated by courts or law enforcement in their reporting [2] [6] [3]. Reporting also observes that Riley does not appear in the troves of documents unsealed around Epstein investigations through early 2026, meaning reporters found no public records linking the name in those document dumps [3] [7].
3. Forensic and corroboration steps that have not been publicly completed
Public reporting and a forensic-focused special report outline what independent verification would require — identity confirmation, audio authentication, mapping claims to records, and corroboration from witnesses or documents — and note those steps have not been completed or published [1]. Investigative outlets warn that viral distribution and algorithmic attention can create a “verification trap” by amplifying unverified claims before these professional checks are done [1].
4. Law enforcement engagement — reported but not independently confirmed
Voldeng’s claim that she shared files with police is repeated in coverage, but none of the reporting cites independent confirmation from a law enforcement agency that it has received, authenticated, or opened a formal inquiry based on these specific recordings [3] [8]. Journalists and platforms therefore treat law-enforcement sharing as an asserted step by the publisher rather than a publicly documented investigatory path [3] [8].
5. Community-led hunting and gaps in documentary mapping
Online communities and journalists are reported to be combing public records for overlaps between Riley’s claims and known documents or victims in Epstein-related disclosures, but outlets stress any matches would still require professional confirmation — and so far no such confirmed overlaps have emerged in published reporting [1] [9]. Several reports emphasize that names dropped in the tapes do not currently appear as indictments, court records, or verified probes tied to these audio allegations [7].
6. Competing framings, motives, and the limits of available reporting
Coverage presents two competing framings: proponents urge the recordings be treated as important survivor testimony warranting investigation and protection [8], while critics and verification-focused outlets point out the absence of independent confirmation and the risk of misinformation amplified by viral platforms [1] [2]. The public record assembled by these sources does not include a neutral, third-party forensic lab report, a confirmed law-enforcement statement substantiating receipt and validation, or court filings that would independently verify the audio or its factual claims [1] [2] [6].
7. Bottom line — what has actually been verified since November 2025
Independent verification remains absent in publicly available reporting: no outlet cited here has produced forensic authentication, law-enforcement confirmation of investigatory action tied to the files, or documentary corroboration that maps Riley’s specific claims onto known court records or indictments [3] [1] [2]. The publisher’s custody claim is the principal affirmative assertion, but it stands uncorroborated by independent forensic or official confirmation in the sources reviewed [3] [4].