Has any news outlet authenticated the Sasha/Sascha Riley audio with forensic analysis?
Executive summary
No major news outlet has authenticated the Sasha/Sascha Riley audio through independent forensic analysis; multiple outlets reporting on the tapes note explicitly that the recordings remain unverified and that no courts or law‑enforcement agencies have publicly authenticated them [1] [2] [3] [4]. Some publishers of the material claim to hold original files and say they have shared copies with police, and some commentators have suggested forensic review is possible if originals are provided — but public, journalistic or official forensic certifications have not been produced [5] [6] [7].
1. What the press bundle of reporting actually shows: consistent “not authenticated” language
Every article collected for this review repeats the same central fact: the audio clips attributed to Sasha/Sascha Riley have circulated widely but have not been authenticated by courts, law enforcement, or reputable news organizations, with outlets explicitly stating they have not independently verified the recordings [2] [3] [4] [8]. Filmogaz’s contemporaneous summary likewise concluded there was “no official authentication or legal filings tied to the tapes” and labeled the verification status unverified [1]. Those repeated denials of authentication are the clearest, most consistent factual thread across reporting.
2. Claims by the publisher and what they do — not the same as forensic proof
The person or outlet that released the recordings — identified in some reports as Substack user Lisa Noelle Voldeng — asserts she has the original, unedited audio files and says she has shared copies with police and “trusted allies” [5] [6]. Times Now and other outlets report these publisher claims, and some secondary reporting notes the publisher’s assertion that Riley is willing to undergo further vetting [5] [6]. Those claims are material to the narrative but do not amount to independent forensic authentication by a credentialed lab or a news organization conducting and publishing a forensic review.
3. Forensic options have been mentioned, but no forensic lab reports have been published
Multiple pieces mention that technical validation or forensic review “could” clarify provenance if original files are provided to qualified experts, and one notes that forensic options such as facial recognition against catalogued material could be considered if visual material were located and verified [1] [7]. However, none of the collected reporting includes any published forensic‑audio report, chain‑of‑custody documentation, lab results, or a named forensic laboratory declaring the tapes authentic or not [1] [2] [3].
4. Where this leaves readers: facts, claims, and the limits of available reporting
The authoritative fact supported by the reporting is simple: no news outlet or law‑enforcement agency has publicly authenticated the audio via forensic analysis as of the dates of these stories [1] [2] [3] [4]. Alternative viewpoints exist in the form of the publisher’s assertions of possession of originals and claims of having shared them with police, and some outlets underscore the need and possibility of technical validation [5] [6] [7]. The reporting does not include — and therefore cannot confirm — any private forensic work that has not been publicly documented, nor does it quote any forensic laboratory issuing a formal analysis in the public record [1] [3].
5. Implicit agendas, caveats and next steps to watch for
Readers should note the implicit incentives in play: publishers of sensational material have reasons to emphasize original possession and to frame release as public interest, while mainstream outlets are cautious because incontrovertible verification typically requires documented chain of custody and lab reports; both dynamics appear in the coverage [5] [3]. The next trustworthy sign of authentication would be a named, credentialed forensic laboratory or law‑enforcement statement publishing a completed analysis with methodology and chain‑of‑custody — none of which appears in the current articles [1] [2] [4].