Who is Lisa Noelle Voldeng and what is known about the provenance and chain-of-custody for the Sasha Riley recordings?
Executive summary
Lisa Noelle Voldeng is a Canadian Substack writer who published unverified audio recordings of a man identified as Sasha (or Sascha) Riley, which have gone viral and drawn scrutiny about how the files originated and who has handled them [1] [2]. Reporting shows Voldeng says she conducted phone interviews and possesses the original, unedited files and shared copies with police and trusted contacts, but independent verification and a clear, documented chain‑of‑custody beyond her statements are not available in the sources reviewed [3] [4].
1. Who Lisa Noelle Voldeng is, as described in reporting
Multiple outlets identify Voldeng as the Substack creator behind the newsletter “Outlaws of Chivalry,” listing her public location on Vancouver Island, Canada, and describing her biographical framing of her work as broad and unconventional; those profiles situate her as the account that released the viral material rather than as a mainstream journalist or law‑enforcement official [1] [2] [4].
2. What Voldeng published and how she framed it
Voldeng published a Substack post on November 23, 2025, that included six audio files of interviews she says she conducted with a man named Sascha Barrows Riley, releasing unredacted audio and framing the publication as “in the interest of the public,” while stating she had alerted “allies, church, police, and government officials in various countries” about the material [5] [6] [4].
3. Voldeng’s account of how the recordings were made and shared
According to her own account reproduced in several reports, the recordings were made during a series of phone interviews between July 19 and July 24, 2025, which she claims are original, unedited audio files in her possession; she has said she shared copies with law enforcement and “trusted contacts,” though the reports do not document independent confirmation that investigators have received or authenticated the files [3] [7] [4].
4. What reporting says about provenance and chain‑of‑custody
Public reporting consistently describes the provenance as coming from Voldeng’s phone interviews and her Substack publication, with her asserting custody of the “original” recordings and limited distribution to police and allies; beyond those assertions, none of the reviewed sources provide forensic chain‑of‑custody documentation, metadata analysis, or confirmation from law enforcement that would establish a verifiable evidentiary trail [3] [1] [2].
5. Questions, disputes, and assessments of credibility
Journalists and commentators have emphasized that the tapes are unverified and that the allegations in them are not linked to indictments, court records, or confirmed investigations; critics and opinion writers have also questioned details in Riley’s account and suggested inconsistencies that could bear on credibility, while defenders argue publication was necessary given the gravity of the claims—this debate is visible across news coverage and Substack commentary but does not resolve provenance questions [8] [5] [7].
6. What is known, what is asserted, and what remains unknown
What is known from the sources is that Voldeng published unverified audio she says she recorded in July 2025 and claims to retain the original files and to have provided copies to police and allies [3] [4]. What is asserted by others—but not confirmed in the reporting available—is that the recordings support criminal allegations; reporters stress there is no public forensic verification, no published metadata or chain‑of‑custody documentation, and no independent confirmation from investigators cited in these pieces, leaving significant evidentiary questions open [7] [1] [2].
Conclusion
The public record assembled by these outlets establishes Voldeng as the publisher and self‑described recorder and custodian of the Riley interviews, but it does not provide the independent forensic or law‑enforcement verification that would create a documented chain‑of‑custody for the audio; readers and investigators therefore face a gap between Voldeng’s claims of original possession and the corroborating documentation or official acknowledgment needed to treat the files as authenticated evidence [3] [1] [5].