David Strom says media ignore evidence in Mattress Girl and Cornell 7 cases

On October 14, 2026, commentator David Strom published a column titled “Does Reality Matter? Not in the ‘Mattress Girl’ Case, and Not in Cornell 7 Case Either,” asserting that the media and cultural elite have ignored evidence in two high‑profile rape allegations.

Strom highlighted the “Mattress Girl” case involving Emma Sulkowicz, noting that both Columbia University and police concluded there was insufficient evidence to prosecute the accused, and that a settlement with the accused suggested the university acknowledged a rights violation. He contrasted this with the Cornell 7 case, where legal processes similarly pointed to a lack of prosecutable evidence, yet the allegations received extensive national attention.

“What is striking about these cases, as with the case that Theo Jordan refers to (the hoax of residential school mass graves), is the willingness of the cultural elite institutions, and especially the media, to ignore the evidence and stick with a Narrative™ despite the complete lack of evidence to support it.”

Strom argued that the media’s focus on these stories serves a pre‑election agenda that portrays the accused as villains and the alleged victims as emblematic of a “victimhood left.” He cited Letitia James’s early statement on the Cornell case as evidence that the prosecutor had already formed a conclusion before a thorough investigation.

The columnist also referenced a tweet by Theo Jordan, drawing a parallel between the alleged hoax surrounding residential school mass graves and the two sexual assault cases, suggesting both were being used to advance ideological narratives rather than uncover factual truth.

Strom concluded that institutions traditionally tasked with fact‑finding have instead become advocates for a predetermined story, describing them as “Ben Crump in Perry Mason clothes.” He warned that the presumption of victimhood based on immutable characteristics undermines the legal principle of presumption of innocence.

The piece did not provide new evidence but reiterated findings from university investigations and law enforcement, emphasizing the need for media to prioritize evidence over narrative.