Is Sacha Riley telling the truth?
Executive summary
The audio recordings attributed to Sasha (or Sascha/William) Riley have gone viral and contain explosive allegations tying him to Jeffrey Epstein’s alleged abuse network, but reporting consistently emphasizes that the material remains unverified and outside court files or mainstream investigations [1] [2] [3]. Because independent corroboration has not been produced and key elements — names cited versus documented charges — do not align with public records, the truthfulness of Riley’s claims cannot be affirmed or dismissed based on available reporting [2] [4].
1. What the recordings say and who released them
A series of phone interviews published on Substack by Lisa Noelle Voldeng are the source of six purportedly unedited audio files in which a man identified as Sasha Riley describes trafficking and abuse between the ages of nine and thirteen and names high‑profile political and judicial figures allegedly connected to Epstein’s network [3] [5] [6]. Voldeng says she conducted the interviews in July and has the original files and has shared copies with law enforcement and trusted contacts, according to multiple outlets summarizing her claims [4] [7].
2. What independent reporting confirms — and what it does not
Mainstream and regional outlets reporting on the viral audio uniformly note that the allegations are circulating primarily on social media and Substack, and that no court indictments, verified probe findings, or publicly released Epstein files currently corroborate the names or events Riley describes [1] [2] [3]. Several pieces explicitly state the material is unverified and that the claims do not appear in existing public records tied to Epstein investigations [1] [2] [4].
3. Claims about Riley’s background and investigatory contact
The social‑media narrative describes Riley as an Iraq War veteran and an adopted child who says he was trafficked as a minor; those biographical details are reported in the viral coverage but derive from the recordings and publisher statements rather than independent verification [5] [7] [8]. Some reports recount Voldeng’s assertion that the FBI contacted Riley and that he was moved “to safety,” but that sequence of events is described by the publisher and has not been substantiated in court filings or independent journalism cited in the reporting pool [7] [9].
4. Why claims remain unproven and what that implies
The absence of corroboration in court records, indictments, or established investigative reporting leaves three possibilities equally plausible from the available sources: the tapes are truthful firsthand testimony that has not yet been independently corroborated; they contain inaccuracies or unverified allegations; or they are part of a viral campaign that could be amplified by platform dynamics and political interest — reporting highlights the unverified nature without endorsing any single explanation [1] [3] [6]. The correct journalistic posture, reflected across these sources, is to treat the material as serious but unproven until independent evidence is produced [2] [4].
5. Potential agendas and the risk of amplification
The publisher’s decision to release the material on Substack and the immediate social‑media spread create incentives for rapid amplification that can conflate allegation with established fact; outlets covering the story note the political sensitivity given the public figures named and stress the danger of drawing legal conclusions absent verification [1] [2]. At the same time, advocates for survivors and those calling for release of Epstein‑era files see the audio as a prompt to demand fuller transparency — a motivation explicitly invoked by public figures commenting on the tapes [10].
6. Bottom line: is Sasha Riley telling the truth?
Based on the reporting available, it is not possible to definitively say whether Sasha Riley is telling the truth; the audio exists and the publisher asserts its authenticity, but independent corroboration, official records, or investigative confirmation are not present in the documented coverage reviewed here, so the claims remain unverified [3] [4] [2]. Responsible inquiry requires forensic review of the recordings, corroborating documentary or witness evidence, and transparent involvement of investigative authorities before the allegations can be judged true or false by public standards [1] [6].