Why would she express concern about AM III being around children unless he was involved in more than just a cover up of wrongdoing done by others?
Because if he helped cover up abuse then he could do it again. I can see why that would qualify as “highly dangerous around children” from the perspective of the woman if she feels that he allowed someone else to abuse her. That could make him a real danger to children even if he didn’t abuse anyone himself.
I think the statement “he is directly responsible” pretty much indicates that he enabled someone else to commit the crime. It would be an odd way of saying he committed the crime himself.
Think if someone said “he was directly responsible for somebody being murdered”. It sounds like there’s a complicated story behind the statement. You wouldn’t say it like that if he actually murdered the person. You’d just say “he murdered this person” as simple as that.
I could be wrong, await clarification, if it comes!