What verification steps have journalists and law enforcement taken regarding the Sasha/Sascha Riley audio recordings?

1. Background: what surfaced and who released it

Six hours of audio attributed to “Sascha/Sasha Riley” were posted via a Substack account operated by Lisa Noelle Voldeng and quickly spread across TikTok, Threads, Reddit and X, with the uploads presented as unedited interviews conducted in July that contain allegations tied to the Epstein case and named political figures ^{[5] [3] [6]}. The publisher asserts Riley is willing to testify and undergo a lie-detector or polygraph test and says copies of the files were shared with police and “trusted allies” in multiple countries ^{[3] [6] [4]}.

2. How newsrooms have handled verification so far

Multiple outlets explicitly declined to authenticate the tapes and emphasized they had not independently verified the content, repeatedly cautioning readers that the claims remain unconfirmed and that the named individuals are not tied to indictments or court findings in these matters ^{[1] [2] [7] [8]}. Reporting has focused on documenting the publisher’s claims about custody of audio and Riley’s stated willingness to cooperate, while flagging the absence of corroborating court records or mainstream investigative confirmation ^{[3] [4]}.

3. What journalists and analysts say responsible verification requires

Independent special reports and media analysis pieces have set out a checklist for treating such a drop like evidence: first, identity verification of the speaker; second, forensic audio authentication to detect edits or splices; third, mapping the testimony against documentary records (dates, locations, court files) and fourth, seeking independent corroboration from records or witnesses—steps reporters say have not been publicly documented here ^[5]. Outlets covering the story have repeatedly noted those missing elements and urged caution ^{[5] [2]}.

4. Law enforcement: claims of receipt vs. public confirmation

The publisher says copies were shared with police and “trusted contacts” in several countries, and has asserted investigations or protective measures are in play, but courts and law enforcement agencies have not publicly confirmed receiving or verifying the recordings and no official investigation has been announced in the public record as pertaining specifically to these tapes ^{[3] [6] [2]}. Multiple news reports underline that no law-enforcement verification or court linkage has been made public ^{[4] [8]}.

5. Gaps, alternative viewpoints and possible hidden agendas

Reporting shows a clear verification gap: the raw audio exists in public, the publisher claims chain-of-custody and offers cooperative gestures (polygraph, testimony), yet independent identity checks, audio forensics and records corroboration are not publicly visible—leaving space for competing narratives and algorithm-driven amplification ^{[3] [6] [5]}. Some coverage emphasizes how explosive allegations can circulate without judicial corroboration and warns that naming public figures without corroborated evidence risks misinformation; others argue public interest justifies rapid release to prompt official probes—both perspectives are visible in the coverage ^{[2] [5]}.

6. Bottom line: what has been done and what remains

In short, journalists have documented the release, relayed the publisher’s claims about sharing with police, and publicly reported that neither newsrooms nor law enforcement have independently authenticated the recordings; independent observers have described the precise verification steps needed but those steps have not been publicly completed or disclosed ^{[1] [2] [5] [4]}. That combination—public audio, publisher claims of sharing, and no official or forensic confirmation in the public record—defines the current verification status and the work still required to elevate the material from viral allegation to verified evidence ^{[3] [8] [5]}.