Who is Lisa Noelle Voldeng and what is her role in releasing contested Epstein-era materials?
Executive summary
Lisa Noelle Voldeng is a Canadian Substack writer who publishes the newsletter Outlaws of Chivalry and has become the public conduit for audio recordings attributed to a man named Sasha (or Sascha) Riley that make explosive, currently unverified allegations tied to Jeffrey Epstein’s network; those recordings were released from her Substack account and she says she conducted interviews with Riley [1] [2] [3]. Major outlets covering the material note that the tapes and the claims they contain remain unverified and that Voldeng’s publication of raw audio — and her framing of it as “public interest” disclosure — has provoked both support and skepticism online [4] [5] [6].
1. Who she is and how she presents herself
Voldeng is identified across multiple reports as a Canadian writer based on Vancouver Island who runs the Substack Outlaws of Chivalry and describes her work in grand terms on her site; that Substack identity is the account from which the Riley material was published [1] [6] [7]. In her own Substack post she says she has been “helping Sascha” and published un-redacted audio recordings she describes as firsthand accounts of child trafficking, torture, rape and murder linked to the Trump/Epstein network [2].
2. The mechanics of the release — what she published and when
Voldeng published a series of audio files and explanatory notes on Substack in late 2025 that she says derive from phone interviews with Riley, which she dates to mid‑July 2025; reporting repeatedly notes the recordings were widely shared from her Substack and circulated across social platforms thereafter [2] [3] [8] [9]. News coverage frames her role not as an institutional journalist but as a creator/platform operator who posted raw testimony and claimed to have conducted the interviews [1] [4].
3. The contested nature of the material she released
Multiple outlets explicitly warn the recordings and Riley’s allegations are unverified: mainstream reporting has not independently authenticated the audio or corroborated the specific claims that name public figures, and some coverage stresses no legal filings or documentary proof accompanied the tapes on publication [4] [9] [5]. That caveat is central to understanding Voldeng’s role: she is the publisher of contested material, not the confirming authority, and reporters have flagged the absence of corroborating documents in her post [5].
4. Reactions, amplification and questions of motive
The tapes ignited a sharp online debate — some commentators say posting the audio was a public service because it made alleged testimony available, while others warn the raw, unvetted release could be manipulated by partisan actors and damage broader survivor narratives; analysts and social-media observers have debated whether right‑wing outlets could weaponize such content even as some on the left urged caution [5] [6]. Reporting does not establish Voldeng’s political motives; it does show her platform amplified the material and that the publication became a focal point in Epstein‑focused forums [6] [1].
5. What Voldeng herself claims and what remains unproven
Voldeng states she personally interviewed Riley over multiple phone calls and that authorities reportedly moved him out of the U.S. for safety after FBI contact; those are claims she has made in posts and in media reporting about her release of the tapes [2] [1]. Independent verification of Riley’s identity, the factual accuracy of his allegations, and the specifics of law‑enforcement contact are not established in the reporting provided; the record available in these sources stops short of corroborating those elements [4] [9].
6. Bottom line for readers and investigators
The record shows Lisa Noelle Voldeng is the Substack publisher who sourced and released the contested Sasha/Sascha Riley audio recordings and framed them as firsthand testimony she collected; major outlets uniformly emphasize the material remains unverified and caution that publishing raw audio carries risks of amplification and partisan exploitation [2] [4] [5]. Reporting to date identifies her role as publisher and interviewer but does not provide independent corroboration of the tapes’ claims, leaving open both the need for careful forensic verification and the question of how such material should be responsibly handled by platforms and the press [4] [5].