Two different stories, linked by the question: to what extent can a mother go to protect her son?
In a country that still tries to deal with the horror of feminicides, the murders of Ilaria Sula and Sara Campanella leave behind an even more disturbing trail. Not only for the brutality of the acts, but for what happened immediately afterwards: two mothers who, instead of condemning the action of the children, cover them, help them, in a gesture that challenges logic, law and ethics.
In Rome, the 23 -year -old Mark Antony Samson confessed the murder of his ex -girlfriend, Ilaria Sula, 22 years old. According to investigations, the mother, Nors Manlapaz, was present during the aggression and would subsequently help her son cleaning the crime scene. The woman is now investigated for competition in the concealment of a corpse.
In Messina, the same dynamic: Stefano Argentino, 26, confessed the murder of the university student Sara Campanella, also 22 years old. The mother, Daniela Santoro, told the investigators that she intervened only after a phone call from her son, worried about a possible extreme gesture. Still, a ticket left by the woman – in which the need is mentioned to move away for health reasons – suggests an attempt to cover.
Two different stories, but linked by a terrible question: to what extent can a mother go in order to protect her son?
We talked about it with the psychotherapist and criminologist Virginia Ciaravolo who helped us to enter the deepest mechanisms of these family dynamics.
Doctor, how do you explain the behavior of these mothers?
«Unfortunately they are not such isolated cases as one might think. There are women who become, in fact, “patriarchy agels”: they carry out, often unconsciously, a system that is sick of power and male control. They defend their children at any cost, even if these children become killers. It is a maternal instinct that turns into something self -destructive, and that very often is fueled by a distorted family loyalty. In the case of Mark Antony Samson’s mother, for example, it is possible that the woman acted out of denial, to protect her son but also herself from the collapse of the family image. Let’s not forget the cultural context: in some cultures the family bond is sacred, untouchable. It is possible that he felt “forced” to protect that child, even at the cost of making himself an accomplice ».
And in the case of Stefano Argentine’s mother? There was also a form of active protection there.
“Yes, and it is a thinner case .. the fact that he acted” out of fear that his son commit suicide “is an attempt to justify. But if you really want to save your child, take him to the barracks, I entrust him to professional help. Don’t hide it. Yet these mothers seem pushed by something bigger than moral sense. It is as if, by saving their son, they tried to save themselves ».
What mechanisms do they start?
“There is a deep identification between mother and son. If he is guilty, then maybe I am too. If he is a monster, I generated it. It is a devastating thought, which can push a mother to defend what she created until the end, so as not to face the weight of that fault ».
Can we say that these are matriarchal families?
«Yes, I would say yes. They are families where the mother moves the ranks. But this power, in these circumstances, is not strength: it is a form of control that bends to despair. When the child becomes “monstrous”, it is as if the mother herself became such, or was seen like this. And then he hides it, protects him, justifies him ».
The case of Saman Abbas, in another cultural context, shows us a mother who lets her daughter kill. The mechanism seems similar.
«Yes, it is a different case, but the root is similar: the idea that the good of the family comes first. Even at the cost of sacrificing a life. Saman’s mother abdicates, she gets aside, lets men act. But it remains silent accomplice. It’s the other side of the same medal ».
What unites these mothers, beyond cultural differences?
«One thing above all: the fear of losing. Losing his child, losing the role, losing himself. And so, they cling to the only thing they feel they can still control: the narration, the truth. And they try to rewrite it ».
Is it correct to speak of “sick love” that the mother transmits to her son?
«I would avoid. When we talk about femicide, we never talk about love. Love does not kill, does not hurt, does not control. Those are addictions, obsessions, emotional pathologies. But not love. And if we begin to use expressions such as “criminal love”, we risk confusing the cards. We can also say that family ties that arise within toxic dynamics can create adults who do not know how to love, but only possess. And in some extreme cases, this leads to tragic outcomes like those we are telling ».
