I was skeptical of the way/context that she was quoted from the start. She’d have to be as big a nut as her boy to have said that in the context reported, why, if she had known of his potential, she could possibly be charged as an accomplice, or some sort of charge related to the event. Another bit of proof that ABC’s reporting is agenda based and/or dangerously incompetent.
The son is an adult; she would not be an accomplice for simply knowing he is off his rocker.