William Sasha Riley proved wrong
Executive summary
The short answer: William “Sascha/Sasha” Riley has not been “proved wrong” in any public, legal, or journalistic sense; rather, his viral audio allegations remain unverified and absent from the unsealed Epstein-related court records so far, and major outlets and law enforcement have not corroborated them [1] [2] [3]. The record is one of amplification without independent proof: serious claims circulating widely on Substack and social media, accompanied by calls for authentication and requests for unredacted files, but no confirmed refutation or judicial finding that the recordings are false [2] [4].
1. The material and its circulation: what exists and who published it
Six audio recordings attributed to Riley were published and spread across Substack, Threads and other platforms, promoted by users including Lisa Noelle Voldeng, and characterized by publishers as unedited testimonies alleging childhood trafficking and abuse tied to the Epstein network; that raw distribution is what propelled the story into public view rather than any courtroom filing or law-enforcement disclosure [4] [5] [1].
2. What mainstream reporting and authorities actually say: no independent verification
Multiple outlets that examined the recordings explicitly warn that the claims remain unverified: neither courts nor the Department of Justice, nor reputable news organizations, have authenticated Riley’s testimony, and the recordings have not been confirmed by law-enforcement investigations made public to date [1] [2] [3].
3. The absence from the public Epstein record: a significant gap
Reporting indicates that as of early 2026 Riley does not appear in the unsealed Epstein-related documents released by the DOJ and courts, and his name is not a visible part of the declassified files that journalists and researchers have been combing through — a factual absence that weakens claims tying the recordings directly into the documented Epstein casework, though absence in the files is not the same as disproof [2].
4. Inconsistencies, promises to cooperate, and the “willingness to testify” narrative
Publishers and social posts emphasize Riley’s stated readiness to testify, take polygraphs and that some copies of the tapes were shared with “trusted contacts” and possibly investigators; critics counter that promises to submit to tests and assertions of relocation or international investigations are not independent corroboration, and reporting highlights inconsistencies and the lack of corroborative documentary evidence [4] [1] [3].
5. Competing interpretations and possible incentives shaping the story
There are clear alternative narratives: advocates for Riley argue the recordings are genuine survivor testimony that mainstream institutions have ignored or suppressed, while skeptics warn that unverified audio can be weaponized politically and amplified for clicks, partisan gain, or to erode trust in institutions; media outlets publishing caveats note both the seriousness of the allegations and the real harm of spreading unverified claims [1] [5].
6. Conclusion: proven wrong? — not by the evidence available
Based on the reporting examined, there is no public, authoritative finding that proves William “Sascha/Sasha” Riley wrong; instead, the situation is that his allegations remain publicly unverified, absent from the unsealed Epstein files reviewed by reporters, and treated with caution by mainstream news outlets pending independent corroboration — an evidentiary limbo rather than a legal or journalistic refutation [2] [3] [1].