Terry Richardson Is Under Investigation by the NYPD for Sexual Assault

Terry Richardson Is Under Investigation by the NYPD for Sexual Assault

Photographer Terry Richardson is being investigated by the New York Police Department's Special Victims Squad according to accounts from multiple women who have been contacted for interviews by detectives. 

Several women confirmed to the NY Daily News that they had been contacted by the Special Victims Squad and asked to discuss their interactions with the controversial photographer. One of the models, Caron Bernstein, was part of a story on Richardson last month in which she detailed a sexual assault at his studio, after which a detective contacted her for an interview. Bernstein alleged that after inviting her to a shoot in 2003, Richardson exposed himself and coerced her into performing oral sex on him. Other models with similar stories have come forward and have also been contacted by detectives. In addition, advocacy group Model Alliance is also interfacing with the police regarding the allegations against Richardson. 

Richardson continues to deny the accusations, asserting that any such interactions he has had with models have been consensual. The photographer was recently banned from leading magazines such as Vogue and GQ. The interviews with the models are supposed to take place in the next few weeks. 

[via NY Daily News]

Posted In: 
Log in or register to post comments

42 Comments

Neville Ross's picture

So, he's been got, too. Good thing that he's being investigated NOW and not years later.

EDIT: I'm NOT defending what Mr. Richardson's done, BTW, just for the record.

Alex Cherkasov's picture

Well, it's sad..so many famous persons were allegedly accused of sexual harresment. what's going on...

michael buehrle's picture

they think that because they are rich and famous that rules don't apply to them. it is no secret that people knew what was going on but chose to say nothing. every place you look now are getting hit with these things. what amazes me is that all these women said nothing ever until it was convenient to jump on the wagon. and i will bet you that there are many of these "victims" that nothing ever happened, just looking to get paid.

Alex Cooke's picture

I’m gonna go ahead and assume based on your response that you’ve never been the victim of something so heinous if you categorize their speaking up as “jumping on the wagon” instead of considering that perhaps they feel strength in numbers when trying to hold an individual and industry accountable for horrible things, particularly when doing so can end their careers. By the way, Caron Bernstein, the model whose account was used in this article, says the assault occurred in 2003. The statute of limitations for civil suits regarding sexual assault in New York is five years (and many other accusations are outside that interval), so your “get paid” argument doesn’t exactly hold water.

I think this is a case of where you are both right. The only question is how much either occurs.

Facts, statistics and human nature easily supports your critical comments and yet you got down-voted. Or was it perhaps due to your continued lack of capitalizations? 🤔

Gabrielle Colton's picture

incidents like this make women QUIT modeling, photography or whatever they do FOREVER. Is there anything on earth that would make you do that? No probably not.

"Bernstein alleged that after inviting her to a shoot in 2003, Richardson exposed himself and coerced her into performing oral sex on him."

Not specific to this woman and photographer's case, but I'm not buying a lot of the claims of coercion. Using actresses as examples, there were many mature and very strong willed actresses in Hollywood that only recently spoke up about sexual harassment, or worse, that occurred in that industry. In my opinion I believe many of them willingly went along with the slimey demands of those in a position to advance their careers. I think what many, if not most of them, were really concerned about is being exposed as willing participants in such behavior and activity and/or later regretting their willful actions.

This is not to downplay the seriousness of actual cases of sexual harassment, assault and rape, but it needs to be said that women also use sex as a way to control men and to get ahead in their careers. I'm not giving away the equivalent of Coke's recipe with that nugget of information. Any honest man or women would acknowledge that fact. My concern is the ease with which men today can be accused of sexual harassment, assault and rape, and without any proof a man's life can be destroyed because it isn't politically correct to question or doubt women.

Scott Harris's picture

"In my opinion I believe many of them willingly went along with the slimey demands of those in a position to advance their careers."

So... coercion. I mean... that's kind of the point here.
"Do this, and your career will continue, don't, and you're out of the studio/movie/album/etc."

The key word I mentioned was willingly.

Michael Maynard's picture

"Do this, and your career will continue, don't, and you're out of the studio/movie/album/etc."

Even if the abused said, "Yeah, sure, whatever you say" This is still coercion. Would they have done it if getting blacklisted was taken off the cards? Who would? You are not willing in that situation, you are coerced and saying that they were "willing" is just excusing the abusers and giving them free reign to continue.

You would be pretty pissed I bet if an opportunity were dangled in front of you and you could only get it if you had to blow someone. Don't blame those that pucker up, blame the ones who put such a ridiculous situation in the way of success

It may sound cold to some but I have little sympathy for adults choosing to compromise their morality in order to advance their careers.

"Don't blame those that pucker up, blame the ones who put such a ridiculous situation in the way of success."

I haven't given a pass to the harassers. The willing participants also deserve blame for enabling such activity, and their dishonesty should be exposed if they then later complain about it.

Joe Schmitt's picture

Some people are totally ok with trading their bodies in return for career advancement. Is it right? Morally, no. But it’s their body and, if they got what they wanted, then it was a successful transaction for them. It’s just BS that they’re now calling out those people because they’re having regrets years later.

Look at the case against Nick Carter. The girl says he had her pants off 3 times in one night yet she chose to stay at his house that night instead of leave. If she was truly bothered she could have called anyone...a friend, a co-worker, a taxi, the cops. And that he forced himself on her and the sex wasn’t consensual...but then she goes and records songs with him????? HUH?! What person willingly works together with their “rapist”? Sorry...I’m not buying her story in the least bit. Her career didn’t take off and now she feels bad that her end of the transaction didn’t work out.

Coersion: the practice of persuading someone to do something by using force or threats.

Persuasion can come off as willingness but it's not the same.

If coercing a suspect into coping out for multiple crimes isn't ok, then it sure doesn't pass as consent for sexual intercourses...

If a woman is being raped then persuasion has nothing to do with it. She is being physically forced to do something.

If she is not being physically forced to have sex but is say threatened with the loss of a job instead if she doesn't have sex then in line with what I said before, if such a person is willing to compromise their morality for a job then I have little sympathy for such people.

You have a clear lack of empathy. Some people need their jobs to stay alive or to care for their loved ones.

Think of all the maids in hotels that barely make it to the end of the month and here you are telling them "Fuck your family's survival, after all the guys deal was fair".

The whole fucking point of this is that they shouldn't be even put in a position to refuse this sort of deal. And you can't even see this...

"You have a clear lack of empathy. Some people need their jobs to stay alive or to care for their loved ones."

A job where they are forced to have sex? Look for another job.

Don't have children if you can't afford them. It's the number one way for young people to become poor. If you can't properly take care of such a child then put it up for adoption. That child, and the taxpayer, should not be made to suffer because of an irresponsible and selfish decision.

"Think of all the maids in hotels that barely make it to the end of the month"

What maids would those be? Illegal immigrants being paid illegal wages?

"The whole fucking point of this is that they shouldn't be even put in a position to refuse this sort of deal. And you can't even see this..."

Of course they shouldn't be put in such a position, but women going along with it enable and perpetuate such behavior and end up endangering other women.

I hope you find somewhere in your heart to understand the privilege you have to think like that...

Leigh Miller's picture

Awww this again...my prediction: Nothing will come of it and the world will carry on spinning. However articles on TR will continue to pop up on FS, PP etc... come on Alex...

Alex Cooke's picture

“Come on, Alex” what? Sexual assault is not something to be taken lightly and the world doesn’t just “carry on spinning” for victims of it. If it’s a problem in the industry, we’re going to report about it.

Leigh Miller's picture

Ya..c'mon Alex..do better. Last time I checked the URL for this website was not www.CNN.com right?

Politics, Faith, etc...doesn't really go with our thing. If your only connection is that the person of interest is a photographer then why haven't you also include the several others that have been similarly accused such as Anthony Turano..I think I saw Thomas Roma somewhere today.

It just seems like the "news" on here is so slow that old nonsense just gets recycled as filler without an ounce of effort to develop the story and why it's important.

Half-assed effort bro...I I generally like your writing but you phoned this one in.

"Politics, Faith, etc...doesn't really go with our thing."

Of course it does. Art, either directly or indirectly, always has a way of bringing up such things.

Gabrielle Colton's picture

YESSSSS ALEX

Hans Rosemond's picture

Also, this isn’t a crusade that Alex has taken on, although he may have his own opinions. It’s news. I think we would be remiss if we didn’t report it.

Expat Photographer's picture

Agreed, it should be reported on as it's news.

Clearly, however, Alex is not just objectively reporting on the issue considering his comments. You can't have it both ways. This is where very well defined journalistic standards are often ignored on such platforms, leading directly to the criticisms like the one leveled by Leigh. Alex, again very clearly, has not only sided with the victims making the allegations, but has continued on to use that presumed guilt as a basis for a broader position which he completely fails to provide even one single fact to support his position.

You can't have it both ways.

Alex Cooke's picture

Read the article again. It's entirely objective and simply reports the facts regarding how the case is proceeding along with a contextual history, which included mentioning both the allegations and that Richardson denies them. The article essentially reads like this:

- Richardson is being investigated for sexual assault, as confirmed by several models who have alleged such assaults and have now been contacted by the NYPD.
- Here is a more specific example of once such allegation.
- Richardson denies these allegations.
- This is not the first time these allegations have caused issues.
- Here's the expected timeline of the investigation.

How I respond in the comments in specific discussions is a separate matter from maintaining objectivity in the article, and I think it's abundantly clear to anyone that my personal comments are distinct from the information given in the article. Every reporter has their own personal opinions, and it's their job to remove them for the sake of objectivity when they're reporting news, which is what I did. If you'd like me to provide facts and stats to support my opinions, please bring up a specific point and I'd be happy to, but first, you have to accept that I'm allowed to have those opinions outside the article itself.

p.s. What I've said in the comments is basically that allegations of sexual assault in the industry should be reported and that I believe Michael overlooked the true cause of the delay in reporting them and made a logical error in assuming the motivations were monetary, which I then backed up with the objective fact that the cases are beyond their civil statutes of limitation, aka the objective fact you're looking for.

p.p.s. Leigh didn't criticize my objectivity; he didn't really criticize anything, except seeming to imply that the story wasn't worth reporting.

Expat Photographer's picture

"It's entirely objective and simply reports the facts regarding how the case is proceeding along with a contextual history..."

Which you immediately undermined by your comments. I've been very clear on this point. Just as your fallacious argument regarding money, i.e. only possibly based on civil suits, here too you're, in an astronomically clear manner, using a fallacy.

"How I respond in the comments in specific discussions is a separate matter from maintaining objectivity in the article.."

Obviously false. A freshman journalism student in community college knows better.

Yes, the article was objective. Yes, you completely undermined yourself with your continued public comments.

This has become quite bizarre to be honest.

"p.s. The only things I've said are basically that allegations of sexual assault in the industry should be reported and... "

Yeah, bizarre. I'll end this by quoting you and demonstrating the above quote is a blatant lie.

"I’m gonna go ahead and assume based on your response that you’ve never been the victim of something so heinous if you categorize their speaking up as..."

Where's the editor here? Wow.

Alex Cooke's picture

Again, you seem to have trouble separating comments from the article itself. Nonetheless, I'm glad you agree the article was objective. Please understand that outside the article, I'm still a person with opinions. Thanks for reading.

Here's the contact form: https://fstoppers.com/contact

Expecting journalistic values from an enterprise such as fstoppers is insanity at best.

Hans Rosemond's picture

Expat, aren’t we being a bit unfair by demanding that Alex maintain complete objectivity in a comments section? If we are to entertain the notion of a dialogue, isn’t it necessary that a party in the conversation take a viewpoint?

I would argue that if Alex can be expected to take part in the conversation regarding the article, then we must allow him to wear a different hat that reflects his new role. He has switched from a journalist reporting news to one who is commenting on a story. Yes, it’s his story, and while that may scream “conflict of interest,” again if there is an expectation of participation in the discussion, then we must allow him to change his role.

Web-based journalism is not the same as newspaper or television based news-casting. You’re right in that it would be absolutely bizarre for an anchor to deliver news and then immediately turn around and give his opinion. However, the internet format is completely different in its layout. Commenting on a story has become the norm in this medium, however difficult that may be to reconcile with the news we are used to.

More comments