How has Lisa Noelle Volden documented and verified the primary source materials she published related to Riley’s testimony?
Executive summary
Lisa Noelle Voldeng published what she describes as raw, unredacted victim testimony from Sascha (Sascha/Sasha) Riley by posting audio to her Substack and using that material as the basis for a public timeline and reporting; she frames corroborative material as “supplemental” to the testimony but, in the reporting provided, offers limited independent verification of key factual claims beyond assembling related records and third‑party notes [1] [2]. Critics on social platforms have flagged both the extraordinary nature of some claims she amplifies and the absence, in the sampled reporting, of corroboration from independent law‑enforcement or archival sources [3] [4] [5].
1. What she recorded and released: raw audio as primary source
Voldeng says she first spoke with and recorded Sascha Riley during July 19–24, 2025 and posted the victim testimony as unredacted raw audio on her Substack, presenting the recording as primary documentary evidence of Riley’s claims [1]. Independent posts referencing her work describe a PDF timeline created “directly from his testimony” and note that the timeline and other products began with the unedited audio she published [2]. Those facts establish that her core published primary material is the audio testimony itself and derivative timelines based on its contents [1] [2].
2. How she says she corroborated or contextualized the testimony
In her own account she emphasizes that the testimony is central and that corroborative evidence should be seen as supplemental — “corroborative evidence supports the truthful testimony,” she writes — suggesting an epistemology that privileges first‑hand testimony while treating documentary corroboration as reinforcement rather than as the decisive proof [1]. Public work derived from the testimony, including timelines and additional checks mentioned in a social post, shows she attempted to match Riley’s recollections to dates, names, and public records, for example using obituary and background searches to explain family links or absences noted in Riley’s account [2]. Those activities indicate methodological steps typical of investigative reporting — creating timelines and seeking public records — but the available reporting does not provide a docket of specific records produced or independent third‑party confirmations tied to particular contested claims [2] [1].
3. What the reporting shows she did not publish or verify (limitations)
None of the provided sources show that law‑enforcement agencies, forensic experts, or independent archival authorities have verified the more explosive factual allegations attributed to Riley; her substack asserts large criminal networks and violent acts but the sampled reporting does not contain police reports, court filings, or forensic documentation to substantiate those assertions [1]. Social threads and archived posts also reveal that some of the claims she amplifies are contested or viewed as sensational — commenters on Threads and archived posts call attention to graphic allegations and label some material “so‑called” testimony or point to implausible specifics, highlighting community skepticism and a gap between audio publication and independent verification [3] [4] [5].
4. Reception, credibility signals, and implicit agendas
Voldeng’s decision to publish unredacted audio functions as both a transparency move and a credibility gambit — making the raw testimony available allows others to judge Riley’s account directly — but it also shifts the burden of verification onto readers and outside investigators rather than substituting for corroboration from neutral authorities [1] [2]. Critics and observers on social platforms have reacted to the lurid nature of some statements associated with the project and to the way connections (for example family names and obituary anomalies) are inferred; those critiques suggest an implicit agenda in rapid publicizing of sensational testimony that may prioritize exposure over stepwise corroboration [3] [4] [5]. The provided reporting does not include an editorial note or a documented chain of custody beyond her statement of recording dates, so questions remain about how thoroughly source materials were vetted before publication [1] [2].
5. Bottom line: documented methods exist, but independent verification is not shown in available reporting
The available record shows Voldeng recorded and publicly released raw audio of Riley’s testimony, constructed timelines from those recordings, and sought supplemental public records to provide context, while explicitly framing corroboration as supportive rather than primary [1] [2]. What the sources do not show is robust independent verification — such as police, court, or forensic corroboration of the most serious allegations — and public responses on social platforms reflect both belief and skepticism, underlining that publication of raw testimony is not the same as independently verifying extraordinary claims [3] [4] [5].