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]

Log in or register to post comments

31 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.

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.

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."

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

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...

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...

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.

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.

Expat Photographer's picture

"Expat, aren’t we being a bit unfair by demanding that Alex maintain complete objectivity in a comments section?"

Unfair? Absolutely not. This is a clear and blatant violation of impartiality under the canons of journalism.

You do understand that, right? I'm not trying to be rude, but this is a fairly basic issue with journalistic ethics. This is, literally, a textbook example. A journalist who assumes the validity of an accuser, (who hasn't even spoken with the police yet!) and guilt of the accused (when a police report hasn't even been filed yet!) in an opinion reply to the article itself?!

The third value of journalism was tossed out the window. That's not being unfair. The five values exist for very good reasons.

I'm sorry, but you're following questions and positions seem to indicate you don't understand this point. Of course as the journalist who wrote the article he can't "wear a different hat" regarding this own article. It's his article...

"Web-based journalism is not the same as newspaper or television based news-casting."

Actually the canons of journalism are exactly the same. The delivery method of a webpage or piece of paper is entirely irrelevant.

" 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."

It's not difficult at all. The clear ethics violation of a journalist blatantly undermining the integrity of their own article is not difficult to understand.

Alex Cooke's picture

The third tenet is impartiality in regards to *reportage.* That was maintained, as you said yourself. Commentary is not reportage. No ethics violation. End of story.

In regards to commenting on stories and journalists injecting their personal beliefs, that's evolved much more than you claim it has. I'm friends with a major journalist who comments outside the writeup of their articles all the time, which generates much more discussion, because by virtue of their position, they're already one of the most informed commenters. Here's a great article summing up the current state of affairs, which is way less black and white than you claim: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/06/public-editor/when-reporters-get-perso...

Either way, we're clearly not going to agree on this, so I'll leave the discussion here. Thanks again for reading.

Brian Pernicone's picture

I think it's helpful if one thinks of the news story as the reporting and the comments as a column or op-ed. There are different standards of objectivity applied to each, whether on the web, in print or broadcast.

It's not uncommon, for instance, for a newspaper's sports section to have a beat writer who also writes a weekly column. Frequently, that reporter will express an opinion about a subject on his or her beat. The team or fans may object to the writer expressing such opinions, but the best reporters are there in the locker room to face them and their criticism day after day, while still objectively reporting on the facts.

If anyone could point to some bias in Alex's article, there would be an issue. As written, the story is objectively reported.

Leigh Miller's picture

Remiss??

My my...we do get our noses in the air on here.

There is real photography/Video news out there. Plenty that aren't getting the kind of exposure to "we" photographers need. Let the gossip columns handle Terry.

Hans Rosemond's picture

Huh? It’s news. An event happened. It’s related to photography. It isn’t a rumor or hearsay or gossip. If you want to expound upon the coverage of a real event and editorialize it, that’s fine. But the story itself is sound.

Jon Winkleman's picture

Every woman who alleged sexual assault at Fox News not only lost their jobs but is banned from ever applying for a job at any company owned by Fox New's parent company. Weinstein did sabotage the careers of women who stood up to him. Many of the models assaulted have worked very hard to get where they are. They know right or wrong, if they become trouble makers it could be their career that ends. It is very easy to criticize models, actresses and other professionals for not coming forward sooner. However if someone has invested many years and a lot of money to pursue their dream profession and their choice is to throw away that career and their previous success or to keep quiet, it is not unreasonable for a victim to not want to destroy their career and life in a system that frequently punished victims worse than predators.

dale clark's picture

I get innocent until proven guilty. However, these woman have no reason lie or misguide the public about the photographer. Lots of bigger fish out there for such. IMO, all the recent "big name" allegations has not even scratched the surface. It's an overall culture with these people that went on far too long and was just accepted as "part of the job". It's everywhere...in the studios, factories, offices, political - public service organizations..churches......you name it. I would sat 95% men. The investigators will weed out "innocent flirting" (which is the big excuse many give) and actual harassment. I say keep the pressure on so people can go to work, exhibit their talent and do whatever they want in their life without feeling worried or pressured over some perv. Just my two cents. Sorry for the rant :)

Gabrielle Colton's picture

The cover image says it all, ew so freakin creepy

More comments