What evidence have journalists been able to corroborate from the Sasha Riley audio recordings?
Executive summary
Journalists have corroborated that a set of six audio recordings attributed to “Sasha/Sascha Riley” exists, was published by Substack writer Lisa Noelle Voldeng, and has been widely circulated online — but they have not corroborated the truth of the explosive allegations contained within them or tied those allegations to court records or law‑enforcement findings [1] [2] [3].
1. What is verified about the recordings themselves
Multiple outlets report the same basic chain of custody and format: the material consists of six audio files released by Substack publisher Lisa Noelle Voldeng, whom she says interviewed Riley by phone between July 19 and July 24, 2025, and who claims to hold original, unedited files and to have shared copies with police and “trusted allies” [1] [2] [3].
2. What journalists have been able to corroborate about the speaker and claims — and what remains unverified
Reporting repeatedly describes the speaker as using the names Sasha or Sascha Riley and saying he was trafficked as a child and later abused, and that he names public figures in those accounts; however, multiple outlets explicitly state those allegations have not been authenticated by courts or law enforcement and do not appear in indictments or verified probes [4] [5] [3].
3. How mainstream fact‑checkers and newsrooms have treated the material
Independent fact‑checking and news organizations have documented the existence and content of the recordings — including their claims of trafficking, abuse, and named individuals — while stressing that the content remains unverified and that serious allegations require corroboration through records or official investigations before being treated as established fact [6] [3].
4. What corroboration has not been achieved so far
No reporting in the supplied material establishes that any named figures are implicated in court documents, that law enforcement has confirmed Riley’s account, or that independent forensic authentication of the audio (timestamping, voice matching, editing analysis) has been published; outlets uniformly warn that the recordings’ claims remain allegations absent that corroboration [4] [2] [3].
5. The provenance claims and why they matter
Voldeng’s stated provenance — that she conducted the interviews, possesses unedited files, and shared them with police and allies — is corroborated across coverage and is the primary basis for journalists treating the tapes as a newsworthy document rather than pure rumor, yet those provenance claims are not the same as independent verification of the speakers’ identity or the factual accuracy of his statements [1] [2].
6. How the recordings have affected public conversation and why reporters are cautious
The recordings have rapidly circulated on Substack and social platforms and prompted intense online debate; journalists and analysts cited in the reporting emphasize two tensions: the public appetite for new information about the Epstein network, and the danger of amplifying unverified allegations that name living public figures without corroboration [3] [2] [5].
7. Alternative viewpoints and possible agendas to watch for
Coverage makes clear there are competing impulses at work: publishers and social users pushing the audio as urgent testimony, survivors and advocates who may find the content credible on its face, and mainstream outlets and fact‑checkers urging restraint until documents, law‑enforcement confirmation, or forensic audio work are produced; the reporting notes these dynamics without independently adjudicating Riley’s claims [6] [3].