First, "skeptic" means "doubt", not "denial". Second, the females in the discussion are accusers, alleging they have been harmed and accusing Tucker of harming them. I'm not quite sure how harmful seeing a penis, or even being touched by one is, so I also have a bit of a problem referring to the viewers or the touchees as "victims".
It's also troubling that an anonymous group comes forward for some unknown reason, alleging themselves to have been harmed in a period ranging from 13 to 8 years ago. I probably ought to go back and reread the article, but I missed what it is they want to happen.
The last, relatively scant, part of the story quotes and identifies other females who claim that Tucker has been their client in the much more recent past and that they have seen no improper activities from him. As is often the case, it's not remotely clear what actually happened.
All things considered, I'm on the skeptical side here. Reckon I'm just gonna see how this story plays out.
Hey - any Baltimorians here? What can you tell us about the Baltimore Banner?