Who is Lisa Noelle Voldeng and what is her track record publishing investigative audio or Substack reporting?
Executive summary
Lisa Noelle Voldeng is an independent Substack creator who publishes a newsletter called Outlaws of Chivalry and has used that platform to release a large package of alleged eyewitness audio and documents tied to a person known online as Sascha (Sascha) Riley; mainstream and specialist outlets report the material is unverified and warn that Voldeng is not a conventional investigative journalist [1] [2] [3]. Her most prominent public act to date is the November 2025 posting that published un‑redacted audio and claimed supporting documents, which rapidly amplified across social platforms and drew scrutiny for lack of independent corroboration [2] [4] [3].
1. Identity and platform: a Substack operator, not a newsroom
Voldeng’s public footprint is primarily her Substack account, billed as Outlaws of Chivalry and styled as “ultramissives” from Lisa Noelle Voldeng and friends, with her Substack profile and listings showing her as an independent creator rather than a journalist embedded in a newsroom [1] [5]. Public site metadata and reporting note an association with Ultra‑Agent Industries and copyright markings appearing on her posts, giving the project a mixed creator/entrepreneur identity rather than the institutional branding of legacy investigative outlets [4] [1].
2. The November 2025 audio publication and its claims
On November 24, 2025, Voldeng published a multi‑part Substack post that she described as including “un‑redacted audio recordings of firsthand accounts” of child trafficking, torture, rape and murder attributed to an individual identified as Sascha Riley and said she had supplied copies to police and allies in various countries [2] [4]. Reporting aggregators and regional outlets picked up that she was the initial amplifier of six hours of audio attributed to Riley, and that she stated the materials were released “in the public interest” while investigations were ongoing [3] [2].
3. Verification, due diligence and the gaps reported
Independent reporting and special‑report analyses emphasize the recordings and allegations remain unverified in public record: no court filings, police reports or independently authenticated forensic records have been publicly presented to corroborate the core claims, and analysts note that responsible verification would require identity checks, audio authentication and documentary mapping that have not been satisfied in the material circulated so far [3] [6] [7]. Multiple news summaries and fact‑check oriented pieces explicitly warn readers these are allegations circulating via Substack and social media, not established facts confirmed by law enforcement or courts [8] [9].
4. Track record as a publisher of investigative audio and Substack reporting
Voldeng’s apparent track record consists largely of independent Substack publishing rather than a documented history of vetted investigative reporting in mainstream outlets; observers describe her as an indie creator and entrepreneur who has used Substack to release material that others then amplified, rather than as a veteran investigative reporter with institutional verification processes behind her work [3] [7]. The November 2025 release is the most prominent example cited across multiple reports of her publishing alleged witness audio and associated claims [2] [4].
5. Reception, competing interpretations and risks of amplification
Reactions split: some forum and alternative‑media communities have treated the material as urgent and credible, while mainstream outlets, specialist analysts and disinformation researchers have urged caution, flagged the absence of corroboration, and examined how the package fits patterns of viral content that pressures platforms to verify or debunk quickly [6] [7] [3]. Coverage explicitly notes Voldeng did not present herself as a conventional journalist and that the release has been amplified widely across Substack, TikTok, Threads, X and other networks—an amplification pattern that raises both the possibility of a genuine whistleblowing disclosure and the risk of viral misinformation when foundational evidence remains inaccessible to independent verification [3] [6] [7].