Have mainstream investigative outlets independently reviewed the audio files Voldeng published, and what were their findings?

1. What Voldeng says she released and to whom

Voldeng’s own posts state she published un‑redacted audio recordings of alleged victims and that “the master files remain in my custody,” and that copies and supporting documentation have been “securely distributed to police, and to trusted allies in several countries” ^{[1] [6]}; her Substack frames the material as first‑person accounts mapped to additional evidence to be released at her discretion ^[1].

2. Absence of evidence that mainstream outlets independently reviewed the files

The reporting available for this query does not contain any citation of mainstream investigative newsrooms or independent journalists who obtained and conducted independent forensic analyses of Voldeng’s audio files; no mainstream outlet’s review, findings, or published forensic report are present in the supplied sources, and therefore there is no documented mainstream verification to rely on here (no source).

3. What independent audio forensics would normally examine—and why that matters

Established digital‑audio forensics practice requires careful scientific procedures—examining file metadata and file structure, preserving chain of custody, and sometimes physically inspecting the recorder or courthouse system—to demonstrate authenticity or detect tampering, because allegations of editing or deletion demand “scientific evidence of alteration” before claims can be judicially proven ^{[2] [3] [7]}. Forensic guidance stresses that investigators should not alter original recorded data, should document device and system details, and should employ waveform and metadata analysis as part of an authentication workflow ^{[8] [3]}.

4. Commercial forensics vendors and what they claim they can do

Commercial audio‑forensics providers advertise that they can analyze creation dates, file formats, editing history, perform waveform comparisons, enhance intelligibility, and produce courtroom‑grade reports and testimony that support or refute claims of manipulation ^{[4] [5] [9]}. Those vendor claims describe the toolbox a newsroom or independent expert would use—but the existence of vendors’ services is not the same as evidence that any of them were retained by a mainstream outlet to test Voldeng’s recordings ^{[4] [5]}.

5. Conflicting imperatives in reporting and advocacy

Voldeng and some supporters have urged immediate public belief in victims and framed the publications as necessary to prompt legal action, including a social message that victims must be believed ^[10]. That advocacy posture can conflict with the cautious, methodical standards forensic experts and skeptical newsrooms apply—chain‑of‑custody documentation, reproducible analytic methods, and attribution statements are necessary to move raw audio from allegation to verified evidence ^{[2] [3] [8]}.

6. What can be concluded from the sources provided—and what cannot

From the materials supplied, the only documented reviews are general expositions on how audio forensics is done and commercial service descriptions ^{[2] [3] [4] [5] [9]}, and Voldeng’s own assertions about custody and distribution of the recordings ^{[1] [6]}. The sources do not document any independent, mainstream news organization having obtained the files and publishing a forensic analysis or conclusion; therefore it cannot be asserted on the basis of these sources that mainstream outlets independently reviewed or validated the audio (no source). If and when a newsroom or certified forensic laboratory publishes an authentication report, that would materially change the public record.