What you believe to be reasonable is again based on the narrative. You reasoned that a woman in that circumstance was intimidated and controlled. Was that stated as part of any facts?
Your post begs a question of why Sandusky’s wife and adopted son were not “implicated”, etc. My comment is an explanation of why. It’s not based on “the narrative”, nor is it offered as the absolute truth of the matter (which neither you nor I know). It’s a plausible take on human nature that any prosecutor would have to overcome with a confession or evidence, such as her own writings or recordings, statements she made to third parties, claims by the victims that they had told her, etc., to have any legal basis for charging her. To my knowledge, no such evidence emerged.
That does not make her morally innocent. My personal sense at the time was that S’s wife knew what her husband was up to, and abetted his depredations through turning a blind eye.