Son accused of robbing Pittsburgh bank, mom of covering for him |

Son accused of robbing Pittsburgh bank, mom of covering for him

Natasha Lindstrom

An Ingram man is accused of an armed bank robbery last January and his mother is accused of knowing about it and trying to protect him, federal prosecutors said.

Brent Richards, 32, is accused by a federal grand jury of robbing the Citizens Bank on Foster Avenue near the Pittsburgh-Ingram border on Jan. 8, U.S. Attorney Scott W. Brady said. He allegedly made off with just over $10,000.

His mother, Melissa Kane, 47, of Pittsburgh’s Beechview neighborhood, is accused in the same three-count indictment of being an accessory after the fact “for helping to protect Richards from apprehension,” Brady said. Further details about Kane’s actions were not available.

The FBI, Allegheny County Sheriff’s Office and police from Crafton and West Mifflin cooperated in the investigation.

The case is linked to newly filed criminal charges against Pittsburgh police Officer Antoine Cain, 49, who has been placed on unpaid suspension amid allegations that he repeatedly lied to the FBI during the investigation of the Jan. 8 bank robbery.

Cain “denied any knowledge of the identity of the individual” who robbed the Citizens Bank branch in a July 27 interview, a complaint said.

Investigators say they later learned not only did Cain know who the suspect was, but Richards admitted to Cain that he robbed the bank, according to the criminal complaint. Cain told the same lie July 31, the complaint said.

Cain was charged Tuesday with two counts of making false statements to government agents, court records unsealed Thursday show.. He struck a plea deal with the federal government whose terms have not yet been disclosed.

Natasha Lindstrom is a Tribune-Review staff writer. You can contact Natasha at 412-380-8514, [email protected] or via Twitter @NewsNatasha.

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.