Who is Lisa Noelle Volding and what is her role in publishing testimonies related to trafficking cases?
Executive summary
Lisa Noelle Voldeng (also spelled Voldeng in many outlets) is a Substack writer and self-described journalist who published and promoted audio testimony attributed to Sascha (Sasha) Riley alleging extreme child trafficking tied to the Epstein network, posting unredacted recordings and commentary on her Substack and social channels [1] [2]. Her role is primarily that of a publisher and amplifier of raw testimony—she claims to have interviewed Riley, shared full audio, and says she contacted allies and some officials after the interviews—while mainstream outlets and experts warn the material remains unverified and caution that independent corroboration is lacking [2] [3] [4].
1. Who is Lisa Noelle Voldeng and where she publishes
Voldeng is identified in multiple reports as the Substack author behind the newsletter Outlaws of Chivalry and posts from a Substack account where she published the audio attributed to Sascha Riley; Hindustan Times notes her Substack bio and lists her location as Vancouver Island, Canada, and that the tapes were shared from her account [1] [2]. Social posts and forums repeatedly point back to her Substack as the source of the unredacted audio and timeline material, and several threads and reposts credit her for releasing the raw files that then circulated online [5] [6] [7].
2. What she published and what she says she did
Voldeng uploaded what she describes as un-redacted audio recordings of Riley’s detailed allegations of trafficking, torture, rape and murder, claiming the recordings originated from phone interviews she conducted between July 19 and July 24, 2025, and asserting she has been “helping” Riley by sharing his testimony and contacting certain allies and officials to warn them [1] [3] [2]. Reporting and social commentary cite her posts as the origin of the viral audio, with her feed explicitly promoted as the place where the full testimony was posted unedited [8] [5].
3. How the material spread and who is covering it
After Voldeng’s Substack postings, the audio and summaries spread rapidly across Substack, Threads, Patreon and smaller blogs, with many users reposting her timeline and raw files and public figures and writers noting the need for verification; outlets such as Times Now and News24 described the audio as viral but unverified, directly linking back to the content Voldeng published [3] [8]. Online communities and commentators have both amplified the files and flagged them for journalists to verify, producing an active, polarized discourse centered on the recordings Voldeng promoted [6] [9].
4. Verification status and journalistic concerns
Multiple mainstream and expert voices emphasized that the tapes and the allegations remain unverified and that the material posted by Voldeng lacked corroborating documents in its public presentation; commentators urged restraint and verification before amplifying claims, with one widely shared note saying the posting “did a public service” by sharing audio but that “there’s nothing in the way of other evidence in the piece itself” [4] [2]. Hindustan Times explicitly stated it had not independently verified the authenticity of the tapes that originated on Voldeng’s Substack [2].
5. Implicit agendas, reactions and reporting risks
The release by Voldeng has provoked a range of responses: some users and creators treat her publication as crucial whistleblowing that should be disseminated, while critics and human rights experts warn the raw, grave allegations could be manipulated, misattributed, or weaponized by partisan actors unless verified; reporting notes concerns that the story’s circulation can influence public conversation about other survivors and investigations, and that publishers of dramatic raw material shoulder responsibility for verification and context [4] [10]. The available sources do not provide independent confirmation of the allegations in the recordings, nor do they establish Voldeng’s professional credentials beyond her Substack presence, so any assessment must acknowledge those evidentiary limits [2] [1].