What independent verifications exist for the Sascha/Sasha Riley audio recordings published on Substack?
Executive summary
No independent verification of the Sascha/Sasha Riley audio recordings published on Substack is documented in the reporting provided: publishers and proponents claim possession of original files and some supporting documents, but mainstream outlets, courts, and law‑enforcement agencies have not authenticated the tapes or confirmed Riley’s allegations, and independent forensic or records corroboration has not been reported [1] [2] [3]. Detailed verification steps that experts say would be necessary—identity confirmation, audio forensic review, mapping to records—remain outstanding in public reporting [4].
1. What the Substack release and publisher say they possess
The recordings were published on a Substack run by Lisa Noelle Voldeng, who says she conducted phone interviews with a man identified as William “Sascha/Sasha” Riley in July and that she holds what she describes as original, unedited audio files and has shared copies with “police and trusted contacts,” according to the reporting summarizing the Substack posts [1] [5]. Some accounts of the release describe roughly four to six hours of audio testimony and claim that Riley provided additional documents and references to public records that he says support his account [4] [6]. Those are claims by the publisher and the interview subject as reported; the existence of the raw master files and the nature of any materials shared with authorities have not been independently confirmed in news reporting [1] [3].
2. What mainstream reporting and official channels say (or don’t say)
Multiple outlets covering the viral audio uniformly note the absence of independent confirmation: neither the Department of Justice, courts, nor mainstream investigative outlets have publicly verified the recordings, Riley’s identity as a survivor in Epstein‑related files, or the specific allegations aired in the tapes [1] [2] [3]. Reporting repeatedly emphasizes that the material is circulating as allegations on social and alternative platforms rather than as evidence introduced in a verified criminal or civil proceeding [2].
3. The independent forensic and documentary steps experts say are needed
A Special Report on the tapes outlines the responsible verification framework that remains unmet in public accounts: authenticated identity linkage between the speaker and records, access to original master audio with metadata for forensic examination, mapping of claims to contemporaneous records (travel logs, police or court documents), and corroboration from other witnesses or documentation—none of which have been publicly documented as completed by neutral experts or institutions in the available reporting [4].
4. Claims of corroborating records and their current status in reporting
Some sympathetic or pro‑Riley writeups claim that Riley has produced adoption records, travel patterns, or overlaps with previously released Epstein‑related documents and that he invited verification or polygraph testing [6]. However, those assertions stem from proponents’ accounts and have not been shown to have undergone independent validation by journalists, forensic specialists, or official investigators in the news sources reviewed [7] [8].
5. Critics’ and fact‑checking perspectives
News reports and analysts caution that viral allegations naming public figures require careful corroboration and note the risk of algorithm‑driven spread without verification; multiple outlets explicitly state they have not independently verified the audio’s authenticity and that allegations are not reflected in existing indictments or court records as of their reporting [7] [2] [8]. The reporting also highlights the possibility of motivated actors on all sides—publishers seeking attention, advocates amplifying survivor testimony, and skeptics pushing for institutional proof—so the motives behind rapid dissemination are debated in public coverage [4].
6. Bottom line: what independent verifications exist today
Based on the sources provided, no independent verification—meaning forensic authentication by neutral experts, corroboration by law enforcement or courts, or confirmation of identity and documentary records by mainstream investigative outlets—has been reported; the materials remain publicly asserted by the Substack publisher and supporters but unvalidated in independent reporting [1] [2] [4] [3]. The record of what would be required to move these claims from allegation to verified evidence is clearly laid out by analysts, but the execution of those verification steps has not been documented in the coverage available [4].