Where can the Lisa Noelle Volding Substack post with Sascha Riley’s raw audio be found and authenticated?
Executive summary
The recording and transcript attributed to Sascha Riley were published on Lisa Noelle Voldeng’s Substack; the specific post titled “Don't worry. Boys are hard to find.” (Part 1) contains the alleged unredacted audio and is accessible at lisevoldeng.substack.com (the post URL is recorded in reporting) [1] [2]. Public discussion and reposts point readers to that Substack entry, but available reporting also flags substantive evidentiary gaps and community skepticism about provenance and linked identities, meaning independent forensic authentication is not demonstrated in the sources provided [3] [4].
1. Where the recording is posted — the Substack location and post title
The raw audio and testimony widely cited in social threads were posted to Lisa Noelle Voldeng’s Substack account, which is listed as lisevoldeng.substack.com [2], and reporting points to a post titled “Don't worry. Boys are hard to find.” (Part 1) as the container for the unredacted audio and testimony [1]. Additional references in social posts and curated threads direct readers to that Substack post as the origin of the audio clips and the longer timeline derived from them [3] [5].
2. What the post claims to contain and how sources describe it
The Substack post is described by Voldeng and third-party summaries as including “un-redacted audio recordings of firsthand accounts” from Sascha Riley alleging child trafficking, torture, rape and murder, and as forming Part 1 of a multi-part publication mapping incidents to purported evidence [6] [1]. Social reporting and threads repeatedly cite those contents and urge listeners to the file, with some writers saying they listened to the full testimony prior to posting or sharing their emotional reaction [7] [8].
3. Public corroboration and amplification: where others point readers
Multiple threads, reposts and a PDF timeline circulated on social platforms link back to the Substack material as the primary source for Sascha Riley’s claims; one thread explicitly attached a PDF timeline “taken directly from his testimony, which was taken by Lisa Noelle Volding and posted unredacted as raw audio to her substack” [3] [5]. These amplifications serve as practical markers for locating the material, since they provide the same Substack URL and title as the origin point [1] [2].
4. Questions about provenance and gaps in the public record
Commenters on the Substack post and other observers note unresolved evidentiary gaps: for example, public materials released around Epstein reference a different William Riley variant, and commenters warn that links between named actors in Riley’s account and the archival documents are not established in the materials shared so far [4]. Reporting available here does not include any independent forensic authentication, chain-of-custody documentation, law-enforcement confirmation of the audio’s integrity, or third-party audio analysis; those omissions mean the Substack posting alone is not sufficient proof of factual claims [4].
5. How one would authenticate the file given the current public record
Based on what the reporting shows, authentication requires steps that are not documented in the sources: confirm the Substack post’s metadata (publication date, author account) on lisevoldeng.substack.com [2] [1], obtain original files or timestamps from the poster, commission forensic audio analysis comparing the file to known voice samples and metadata, and seek corroboration from independent records (police, FBI, Oversight testimony) referenced by supporters in threads — none of which the current sources provide as completed [7] [4]. Public discussion does claim that Riley contacted authorities and testified to oversight bodies, but reporting here refers to that as “to my understanding” and does not attach primary documents confirming those steps [7].
6. The balanced conclusion journalists and researchers must draw now
The Substack post by Lisa Noelle Voldeng is the published location of the alleged raw audio and is findable via the cited Substack URL and post title [1] [2], and social amplification points there consistently [3] [5]. However, the publicly available reporting supplied does not include independent forensic authentication or documentary corroboration tying every claim in the audio to external records; observers and commenters explicitly note unproven connections and evidentiary gaps [4]. Therefore the Substack is the primary source to inspect, but the content on its own — as presented in the reporting — remains unverified without further forensic or documentary proof [6] [4].