I’ve spoken to many women who have been sexually abused who will only speak off the record, meaning I can’t publish their account. They still feel the need to tell their stories and sometimes one person’s account, helps confirm another person’s account.
I’ve also spoken to many women who have gone public at great cost to their well-being. The accounts I’ve written about however, are mentioned in court documents, or have been subjected to rigorous vetting by lawyers, police or the media. In some cases, the victims have photographs, diaries or even appointment books that lend credibility to their truths.
I know survivors sometimes want to take their stories public on their own, on social media, or another platform, where they perhaps feel they have control of the story, instead of placing it in the hands of someone else.
Sascha Riley, a war veteran, has gone viral with recorded interviews that he gave to a “creator” who posted his horrifying story of sex trafficking involving a number of public figures whom he is accusing (and naming) of participating in or being complicit in a wider sex trafficking network involving Jeffrey Epstein. His allegations are extremely graphic and difficult to read, and can be triggering for trauma victims.
Although he has indicated he is willing to testify under oath and take a polygraph, and he says he has some documents that back up his account, the fact remains that his story has not been verified or fact checked before it was put online by a media creator.
Despite this, the story has gone viral, with many people believing, without proof, that it is true. I suspect that something horrible happened to this survivor, if in fact he is real.
As of now, I’ve seen nothing that corroborates this story.
As journalists, we work to verify a story. This is especially important for those accounts in which victims name their abusers. This protects journalists and survivors from being sued or discredited. It takes an enormous amount of time to confirm survivors’ accounts, especially since the victims’ memories often fade, and they do not always keep hard evidence from decades ago when the abuse happened.
Sometimes the person they are accusing of the abuse claims to have evidence that contradicts victims’ accounts, and that has to be checked out as well.
It hurts all survivors when one person stretches the truth or lies. I am not saying this happened in the Sasha Riley case (I repeat: I am not saying his account is untrue) but I am suggesting that the way it has been rolled out — without any verification — and clearly with a political spin — should be weighed when considering the veracity of the story.
For news consumers, one should ask the question “Was this story confirmed in any way?” — who is the person who is urging the victim to come forward? Does that person have experience with sexual assault victims? Does that person appear to have ulterior motives? Is that person using the victim for political purposes?
We all want to believe survivors. But promoting stories — especially those that haven’t been rigorously verified — does a disservice to all the other victims who have worked so tirelessly to be believed.
= new reply since forum marked as read