How have major fact-checkers evaluated the viral Sasha/Sascha Riley audio recordings and associated claims?
Executive summary
Major English-language outlets reporting on the Sasha/Sascha Riley audio say the material consists of six audio files published on Substack and being widely shared on social media, but they uniformly stress the recordings and the allegations within remain unverified and unauthenticated by courts or law-enforcement authorities [1] [2] [3]. The supplied reporting does not include assessments from named, established fact‑checking organizations; instead, mainstream coverage emphasizes provenance questions, lack of corroborating court records, and that the publisher says copies were shared with police and “trusted allies” [4] [1].
1. What the recordings are and who released them
Reporting identifies the viral material as six unedited audio recordings attributed to a man named Sasha or Sascha Riley and published by Substack user Lisa Noelle Voldeng, who says she recorded phone interviews with Riley between July 19 and July 24 and retains the original files [1] [4] [2].
2. How outlets describe provenance and distribution
Multiple outlets note the publisher’s claim that copies of the audio were shared with law enforcement and “trusted contacts” in several countries, and that the files were put in the public sphere in what the publisher called the public interest — claims that reporters relay but do not independently verify [1] [5] [4].
3. The central content and named figures — reported, not proven
The recordings reportedly contain allegations of severe childhood trafficking and abuse tied to the Jeffrey Epstein network and name several high‑profile political and judicial figures; coverage consistently frames those names as appearing in the unverified audio but not appearing in indictments, court filings, or established investigations cited by reporters [6] [3] [1].
4. How “unverified” is being communicated by news outlets
Every source provided explicitly cautions that the claims in the recordings “have not been verified or authenticated by courts of law, or by law enforcement agencies,” and several emphasize that until such verification exists the material must be treated as allegations rather than established fact [3] [2] [6].
5. Specific corroboration claims and contested details
Reporters repeatedly note ancillary claims about Riley’s biography — that he is an Iraq War veteran, was adopted in 1977, and says he was trafficked between ages nine and thirteen — but they also underline that none of those biographical details or the explosive allegations are tied to court records or formal investigations cited in the reporting [6] [2] [3].
6. Reliability, provenance and what fact‑checkers would look for next
The available coverage flags the classic provenance questions that established fact‑checkers would seek to resolve: authentication of the audio files, corroboration of biographical claims, documentation that copies provided to police led to formal investigation, and independent verification that named individuals had the alleged involvement — gaps reporters call out but have not been able to close [1] [4] [5].
7. Limitations of the supplied reporting and open questions
The supplied sources do not present assessments from named major fact‑checking organizations (e.g., AP Fact Check, Snopes, PolitiFact) — instead they are journalist accounts stressing lack of authentication and absence of court records; therefore, whether established fact‑checkers have issued rulings, or what those rulings might conclude, cannot be determined from the material provided here [3] [2] [4].
8. Bottom line for readers following verification
To date, according to the reporting supplied, the Riley recordings are circulating as unverified, publisher‑released audio that contains serious allegations; responsible verification requires independent authentication of the recordings and corroboration through legal records or law‑enforcement confirmation, and those steps have not been shown in the reporting available [1] [3] [6].