Has Lisa Noelle Voldeng provided forensic metadata or chain-of-custody documentation for the Substack audio files?
Executive summary
Lisa Noelle Voldeng has publicly stated that the “master” audio files of the six Substack recordings remain in her custody and that copies were shared with police and “trusted allies,” but there is no public evidence that she has produced formal forensic metadata reports or an independently verifiable chain‑of‑custody for those files [1] [2]. Independent reporting focused on the viral audio notes the absence of the kind of documentation — audio authentication, metadata export, or records mapping — that would be required for responsible verification [3].
1. What Voldeng says she holds and who she told
Voldeng’s Substack posts and publisher notes state explicitly that she recorded the interviews herself and that the “master files remain in my custody,” and she has written that copies were allegedly shared with police, “trusted allies,” and certain officials in several countries [1] [4] [2]. On her Substack she also says she contacted Oklahoma police, OSBI, and other offices and provided audio plus lists of corroborative evidence, and that follow‑up by OSBI hadn’t occurred as of her post [5].
2. What independent watchdog reporting says is missing
A detailed special report from FrontPageDetectives emphasizes that while six hours of audio have circulated widely, the material “remains unverified” and that what’s missing for credible authentication are identity checks, audio‑authentication forensics, records mapping, and corroboration — i.e., the standard forensic metadata and documented chain‑of‑custody that would allow third parties to validate provenance and detect editing or manipulation [3]. That analysis explicitly frames the viral spread as encountering “the algorithm’s verification trap” because social platforms amplify claims long before forensic baselines are established [3].
3. No public forensic reports or documented chain‑of‑custody have been produced
Across the available reporting and Voldeng’s public posts there is no citation of a published forensic analysis (for example: waveform/bitrate examinations, hash lists, time‑stamped metadata exports, or expert authentication reports) nor is there an attached chain‑of‑custody log that would show transfer history, custody signatures, or metadata hashes intended to preserve evidentiary integrity [1] [4] [5] [2]. News coverage that profiles Voldeng consistently frames the recordings as “unverified” and repeatedly notes the absence of formal verification publicly [6] [2].
4. Claims of sharing with law enforcement are not the same as documented forensic transfer
Voldeng’s statements that she shared copies with law enforcement and “trusted allies” are material and potentially relevant, but those claims — reported in her Substack posts and in subsequent profiles — do not amount to published chain‑of‑custody documentation released for public or expert scrutiny [5] [2]. Independent reporting recounts her outreach to agencies but also records that authorities either have not followed up publicly or have not released corroborating confirmations tied to forensic file trails, according to the posts and coverage reviewed [5] [3].
5. Alternative perspectives and the evidentiary standard
Advocates for taking the recordings seriously point to Voldeng’s claim of firsthand interviews and the sensitivity of alleged crimes, and they stress that sharing with law enforcement could be appropriate before public release [4] [5]. Skeptics and verification specialists counter that extraordinary allegations demand extraordinary verification: published metadata exports, hashes, timestamped custodial logs, and independent audio‑forensic examinations by recognized experts — none of which have been produced publicly according to the reporting reviewed [3].
6. Bottom line and limits of available reporting
Based on the available public record, Voldeng has declared custody of master files and says she shared copies with officials, but she has not published formal forensic metadata or an independently verifiable chain‑of‑custody for the Substack audio files; independent reporting has flagged exactly that absence as a central verification gap [1] [3] [5] [2]. If any forensic analyses or chain‑of‑custody documentation have been produced to law enforcement or third parties, those documents have not been made public in the sources reviewed here, and this analysis cannot assert otherwise from the available reporting [3] [5].