Who is Lisa Noelle Voldeng and what is her track record publishing contested testimonies on Substack?
Executive summary
Lisa Noelle Voldeng is a Canadian Substack creator who publishes under the newsletter Outlaws of Chivalry and who on November 23, 2025 released a set of unredacted audio files she says are interviews with an alleged Epstein survivor named Sascha (or Sasha) Riley; those recordings and the claims in them have circulated widely but remain unverified by courts or mainstream investigations [1] [2] [3]. Her Substack release and related posts have prompted both amplification and sharp skepticism: she presents herself as the interviewer and custodian of the material, while journalists and commentators note the absence of corroborating legal records and raise questions about sourcing and verification [4] [3] [2].
1. Who she is and how she presents herself
Voldeng is identified in multiple news reports and on Substack as the author of Outlaws of Chivalry and lists a Vancouver Island location on her profile, presenting a persona that mixes cultural critique with investigative-style postings [5] [4] [1]. On her Substack feed she has posted commentary and notes that cast her as an active collector and promoter of survivor testimony — for example, she publicly discussed marking other alleged cases as “important” and engages in conversations on the platform about related materials [6] [1]. Her public remarks on the platform also include explicit, provocative language about abuse networks that signal a strong editorial stance and worldview to readers [7].
2. The Riley audio release: what she published and claims she made
Voldeng published a “briefing” that included six unedited audio files of interviews with a man identified as William Sascha Riley and an accompanying Substack post titled “Don’t Worry, Boys are Hard to Find,” asserting she personally recorded phone interviews between July 19 and July 24, 2025 and that she had shared the material to warn authorities and allies [2] [3] [5]. In her framing she also said the FBI contacted Riley in the summer of 2025 and that, as a result, Riley was moved out of the United States “to safety,” a claim repeated in media summaries of her post [5] [4].
3. How the material has been reported and its verification status
Mainstream reporting and fact-conscious outlets emphasize that the audio and allegations are circulating through Substack and social media and are allegations only; as of the reporting in these sources the claims have not been substantiated through indictments or verified court records, and major outlets treat the recordings as unverified [3] [4]. Multiple outlets trace the viral spread to Voldeng’s Substack release but stop short of confirming the underlying factual claims about trafficking rings or named public figures, noting the extraordinary nature of the allegations and the lack of corroboration [5] [8].
4. Reception: amplification, skepticism, and analysis
The release immediately drew amplification from networks and commentators predisposed to treating survivor testimony as urgent, but it also provoked critical analyses that question Riley’s narrative consistency and the sufficiency of corroborating evidence; at least one detailed critique argues the story appears incorrect and suggests Voldeng either lacks evidence or is presenting material with insufficient context [9] [2]. That split — between those who see the material as potentially game‑changing and those who see it as deeply flawed or unproven — maps onto broader information ecosystems where Substack creators can rapidly disseminate explosive claims outside traditional editorial vetting [2] [9].
5. Track record publishing contested testimonies and limits of reporting
The documents assembled here show Voldeng’s most visible, contested act to date is the November 2025 posting of Riley’s audio and related commentary — this event is what produced the current scrutiny and is repeatedly cited across the coverage [2] [9] [5]. The available sources do not provide a comprehensive archive of prior contested testimonies or a formal, independent track record of verification work beyond her Substack persona and recent postings, so definitive claims about a longer history of publishing contested testimonies cannot be made from these reports alone; reporting is explicit about that gap [1] [3].
6. Motives, agendas, and the stakes
Voldeng’s public posture and the content she has amplified suggest an agenda of exposing alleged abuse networks and pressuring authorities and publics to pay attention, but critics argue that without robust verification such releases risk spreading uncorroborated accusations that could be politically explosive and personally ruinous; both impulses — advocacy for alleged survivors and the dangers of unverified allegation — are documented in the media coverage [7] [2] [3]. Sources make clear that, for now, the key factual points hinge on verification that has not yet been produced in court records or independent investigations, leaving Voldeng’s release as a contested but consequential entry in the public record [3] [4].