Who is Sasha (Sascha) Riley, what is known about the provenance of the viral audio, and has any court verified his testimony?
Executive summary
Sasha (also spelled Sascha) Riley is the name attached to a series of audio recordings that surfaced online in mid‑2025 in which a man claims to be a survivor of childhood trafficking tied to Jeffrey Epstein’s network and names prominent public figures; reporting describes him as an adopted man who has identified himself as William Sascha Riley and a purported Iraq War veteran [1] [2]. The audio was published by Substack writer Lisa Noelle Voldeng, who says she recorded Riley in phone interviews in July 2025 and retains unedited files she says were shared with “police and trusted allies,” but every mainstream account cited here stresses that courts and law‑enforcement agencies have not authenticated the recordings or verified the claims [1] [2] [3].
1. Who is Sasha (Sascha) Riley: the portrait reported so far
Public accounts portray Riley as a man who uses the names Sasha or Sascha Riley and who has at times identified his legal name as William Sascha Riley; social‑media profiles and the publisher’s notes describe him as adopted (in 1977) and as an Iraq War veteran, and the recordings include his own recounting of alleged trafficking from roughly ages nine to thirteen [1] [4] [2]. Those biographical details are drawn from the audio and the publisher’s notes rather than independent records: multiple outlets covering the tapes explicitly note they have not independently authenticated Riley’s identity or the life‑history elements in the recordings [4] [5] [3].
2. Provenance of the viral audio: what the publisher says
The immediate provenance publicized for the material is a Substack release by Lisa Noelle Voldeng, who says she conducted a series of phone interviews with Riley between July 19 and July 24, 2025, and published six unedited audio files that she claims to hold in her custody while asserting copies were shared with police and “trusted allies” internationally [1] [2]. Reporting repeatedly emphasizes that the tapes spread rapidly through social platforms—Threads, Substack excerpts, and other networks—and that the audio’s circulation owes as much to viral sharing as to formal investigative channels [1] [6].
3. What is claimed in the recordings and how those claims have been treated
The recordings contain grave, specific allegations: childhood trafficking, naming of high‑profile political and judicial figures tied to Epstein‑era networks, and offers by Riley to testify or submit to vetting such as a polygraph, according to the publisher’s framing [1] [3]. But virtually every report cautions that the specific individuals named do not, as of publication, appear in indictments, court records, or verified investigations tied to these audio claims—meaning the allegations exist in the public record only as unverified audio testimony so far [5] [3] [7].
4. Has any court verified his testimony or the recordings?
No court has verified Riley’s testimony, and no law‑enforcement agency or mainstream investigative outlet cited in this reporting has authenticated the audio or produced corroborating public case files; journalists and fact‑checking outlets repeat that the statements remain unverified and unauthenticated by courts of law [4] [5] [7]. While the publisher says copies were shared with police and other contacts, those claims have not translated into public filings, official confirmations, or prosecutions linked to the recordings in the sources examined [2] [3].
5. Alternative viewpoints, risks and the politics of viral testimony
Advocates of publicizing survivor testimony argue the material should be aired and that victims often face barriers to formal proceedings, which is the rationale Voldeng and others cite for publication [3] [8], while critics and cautious reporters warn that unverified audio naming powerful figures can fuel misinformation and partisan amplification if not corroborated—an implicit agenda present in viral circulation dynamics and some commentary about “bad news” for political actors [6] [7]. These competing impulses—transparency for survivors versus the need for evidentiary standards before assigning criminal culpability—are explicit across the coverage [3] [7].
6. What would be needed next to move from allegation to verified evidence
Independent verification would require courts or law‑enforcement agencies to disclose that they have received the original files and authenticated chain‑of‑custody, corroborating documentary records or witness testimony, and—ideally—public filings or indictments that tie names, dates and events in the audio to demonstrable evidence; none of those steps appears in the public reporting cited here [7] [3]. Until such formal confirmation appears in court records or investigative findings, the audio and the claims it contains remain viral allegations rather than court‑verified facts [4] [5].