Who is Lisa Noelle Voldeng and what is her role in publishing the Sasha Riley tapes?
Executive summary
Lisa Noelle Voldeng is a Canadian Substack writer best known for the newsletter Outlaws of Chivalry whose Substack account was used to publish a series of audio interviews attributed to a man named Sascha (Sasha) Riley; she asserts she conducted the interviews and holds the original files, but multiple outlets stress the recordings remain unverified and questions persist about provenance and motive [1] [2] [3] [4].
1. Who Lisa Noelle Voldeng is, on the record
Voldeng is widely described in news reports as a Substack creator and writer who publishes a newsletter called Outlaws of Chivalry and lists a Vancouver Island, Canada location on her site; profiles cite her own about copy describing work that “spans every sweep of civilization, and beyond,” which has helped put her in the spotlight after the tape publication [1] [2] [5].
2. What she published and claims to have done
On November 23, 2025, Voldeng posted unredacted audio files of a man identified as Sascha Barrows Riley and accompanying material on her Substack, and she has told outlets she personally recorded a series of phone interviews with Riley — she dates those interviews to mid‑late July 2025 and says she possesses the original, unedited audio and has shared copies with police and “trusted contacts” [6] [3] [7].
3. The contents and impact of the tapes as released
The recordings released via Voldeng’s account contain explosive, unverified allegations alleging child abuse tied to Jeffrey Epstein and naming high‑profile figures, and the audio quickly went viral across social platforms and newsletters, prompting intense public attention and debate about both the substance of the claims and the ethics of publishing raw testimony before independent verification [8] [4].
4. Independent verification, doubts, and journalistic caution
Mainstream and regional reports uniformly note the tapes remain unverified and that no court record or mainstream investigative confirmation has corroborated Riley’s claims; outlets carrying profiles of Voldeng emphasize that authenticity and provenance have not been independently confirmed and that many questions about how the recordings were procured remain unanswered [1] [7] [2] [5].
5. Critics, alternative readings and potential agendas
Commentators and analysts have offered competing takes: some argue releasing survivor testimony can be in the public interest and pressure institutions to investigate, while critics — including longform commentators who parsed the Substack release — suggest Voldeng’s framing and the decision to publish unredacted audio may reflect an activist or publicity strategy and warn she appears to be relying on testimony as primary evidentiary weight even where corroboration is thin [3] [6]. Reporting so far documents these critiques but does not prove intentional deception or bad faith on Voldeng’s part; it does establish that the material she published has not met the standard of independent verification demanded by major news organizations [6] [5].
6. What reporting does and does not show about Voldeng’s motives and methods
Available reporting shows clearly what Voldeng claims — that she interviewed Riley, holds original audio, and posted it to Substack — and shows the public reaction and immediate evidentiary gaps; reporting does not establish, and the sources do not provide, independent forensic confirmation of the tapes, a public record tying Riley to Epstein’s files, nor definitive proof of Voldeng’s intent beyond her own stated rationale for publishing [3] [1] [2].