Has Lisa Noelle Voldeng or law enforcement since provided any public documentation showing the Riley audio was shared with investigators or matched to existing evidence?
Executive summary
Lisa Noelle Voldeng publicly published six audio files she says are interviews with Sascha (Sasha) Riley and has asserted she shared the original audio with “police and trusted contacts,” but available reporting contains Voldeng’s claims rather than any independent, public files or statements from law‑enforcement agencies confirming receipt or forensic matching to other evidence [1] [2]. No sourced report in the material provided shows law enforcement releasing documentation that the Riley recordings were shared with investigators or that the audio was forensically linked to existing evidence [3] [4].
1. What Voldeng has said publicly
Voldeng’s Substack post and follow‑up coverage state she conducted phone interviews with Riley between July 19 and July 24, 2025 and that she possesses the unedited original audio files, which she says she shared with police and “trusted contacts” [5] [1]. Multiple outlets note the recordings were published from her Substack account and that she framed the release as selective outreach to “allies, church, police, and government officials” after interviewing Riley [6] [2].
2. What law enforcement has—or has not—said
Across the reporting provided there is no cited law‑enforcement press release, public filing, or confirmed statement saying an agency received Voldeng’s audio or matched it to other evidence; some pieces repeat Voldeng’s claim that the FBI contacted Riley and that he was moved “to safety,” but those reports explicitly present that as Voldeng’s assertion and not independent agency confirmation [6] [2]. Journalists and commentators who listened to the tapes have emphasized the lack of supplementary documents—emails, records, or official acknowledgements—that would show investigators officially possessed or authenticated the audio [3].
3. Independent corroboration, credibility debates and counterclaims
Commentary is split: some listeners and commentators find Riley’s recordings “believable” and horrifying, while others and investigations into the story frame the dissemination as part of an online amplification network or potential disinformation campaign, noting that the tapes have not been corroborated with court records or forensic linkage in the public record [3] [4]. Independent researchers have reportedly compiled public records that place figures named by Riley within Epstein’s orbit, but those compilations do not equal public law‑enforcement confirmation that the audio was matched to existing investigative evidence [7].
4. Why formal documentation matters and who benefits from ambiguity
Forensic chain‑of‑custody records, agency receipts, or public statements from prosecutors would convert a private evidence claim into a traceable investigatory record; absent those documents, claims rely on Voldeng’s credibility and the persuasive power of the audio itself, which leaves room for amplification, misinterpretation, or exploitation by partisan channels—an outcome critics warn about and that some reporting frames as susceptible to coordinated spread [4] [8]. Voldeng’s role as an independent Substack publisher and the rapid circulation of the tapes through social and alternative media complicate the public’s ability to distinguish what investigators know from what a private actor asserts [2] [4].
5. Bottom line
Based on the reporting provided, Lisa Noelle Voldeng has publicly claimed to have shared the Riley audio with police and says the FBI contacted Riley, but there is no public documentation or law‑enforcement confirmation in these sources showing the recordings were received by investigators or forensically matched to existing evidence; the available coverage documents claims and reactions, not an official chain of custody or matching report [1] [6] [3].