News

Pro-Palestine Encampment Represents First Major Test for Harvard President Alan Garber

News

Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu Condemns Antisemitism at U.S. Colleges Amid Encampment at Harvard

News

‘A Joke’: Nikole Hannah-Jones Says Harvard Should Spend More on Legacy of Slavery Initiative

News

Massachusetts ACLU Demands Harvard Reinstate PSC in Letter

News

LIVE UPDATES: Pro-Palestine Protesters Begin Encampment in Harvard Yard

Two Seniors Accused of Theft

Nearly $100,000 allegedly stolen from Hasty Pudding

SUZANNE M. POMEY '02 and RANDY J. GOMES '02 were arraigned in Middlesex Superior Court Feb. 5 on charges of felony larceny for allegedly embezzling from the Hasty Pudding Theatricals.
SUZANNE M. POMEY '02 and RANDY J. GOMES '02 were arraigned in Middlesex Superior Court Feb. 5 on charges of felony larceny for allegedly embezzling from the Hasty Pudding Theatricals.
By Amit R. Paley, Crimson Staff Writer

Randy J. Gomes ’02 and Suzanne M. Pomey ’02 were indicted on Jan. 11 for allegedly embezzling almost $100,000 from the Hasty Pudding Theatricals, America’s oldest theater company.

Even before news of the indictment hit campus at the start on February, Gomes and Pomey were well-known figures at Harvard.

Gomes, originally from Plymouth and the former assistant director of the Man and Woman of the Year Awards, portrayed flamboyant characters in several campus plays. In Troilus and Cressida he, in leather pants and bare chest, dry-humped a slender blond man. He was active in gay social life at Harvard and Boston and has told numerous friends that his uncle was Plummer Professor of Christian Morals Peter J. Gomes, though the two are not relatives.

Pomey, a campus socialite from Vine Grove, Ky. and former producer of the Theatricals’ annual show, infamously french-kissed Anthony Hopkins when he received the Pudding’s Man of the Year award last year. She was president of the sorority Kappa Alpha Theta, co-founder of the female social club Isis and selected by Fifteen Minutes, The Crimson’s weekend magazine, as one of Harvard’s 15 most intriguing seniors.

Harvard and the country, after the national media picked up the story, were left wondering why the well-known campus figures might have done it.

Seemingly the only two undergraduates who remained silent were Gomes and Pomey—and neither responded to numerous requests for comment.

“While I would love the chance to tell my side of the story, I really can’t right now because it’s a legal matter,” Pomey wrote in a February e-mail. “So until things get straightened out, I really just have to stick it out and keep the truth to myself.”

The Case of the Missing Money

Prosecutors allege Gomes and Pomey began embezzling funds from the Pudding on March 21, 2000.

Soon afterward, according to the prosecutors’ statement, the two began “living lavish lifestyles.”

Gomes bought expensive electronics, “shopped excessively” and travelled across the country. Pomey shopped frequently, visited spas, bought a $500 cell phone and had a 21st birthday party with an open bar at T.G.I. Friday’s.

In May 2001, Lena Demashkieh ’03, who had just been selected as a co-producer for the next year’s show, realized the Pudding’s financial records were “a mess,” according to the prosecutors’ statement. Demashkieh discovered that tens of thousands of dollars were missing from the Pudding account.

Gomes made 15 transfers worth a total of $86,440.74 to Fleet and Plymouth Savings Bank accounts. Pomey allegedly made 13 transfers worth a total of $22,549.22 from the Pudding to her account at the Fort Knox Credit Union.

The last transfer occurred on June 20, 2001. In September, Pudding executives took their suspicions to the Harvard University Police Department (HUPD).

Pudding executives have repeatedly declined to comment about the alleged embezzlement.

On Sept. 24, Pomey voluntarily went to the HUPD station and, after being advised of her Miranda rights, told HUPD Detective Sgt. Richard Mederos that “it was Randy Gomes, a close friend of hers, who had been diverting the money,” according to the statement.

“Ms. Pomey said that she had given her credit card to Randy Gomes and he did the transferring. When asked directly, Ms. Pomey acknowledged using the [Pudding] credit card machine to transfer money to her account one or two times, but could not remember when she did so. Ms. Pomey explained that Randy Gomes had a bad drug habit and used the money to pay off drug dealers,” according to the prosecutors’ statement.

Later that day, Gomes came to the police station and penned the following confession: “I, Randy Jay Gomes, diverted funds from the Hasty Pudding Theatricals to accounts over which I had control, two of mine and one of Suzanne Pomey’s. I initially stole money to buy drugs, specifically crystal meth, and continued to divert out more as the situation escalated. I also used some of the money to buy some electronic equipment and to travel. I was never proud of what I did and hoped one day when I had beat the addiction and had a job I could pay the Pudding back.”

Gomes also told police he used Pomey’s bank card to withdraw money from her account, according to the statement.

HUPD later recovered drug paraphernalia, a large flat-screen TV, two CD players, a portable DVD player, DJ equipment and 91 DVDs from his room.

Law and Order

On Feb. 5, Gomes and Pomey were arraigned in Middlesex Superior Court on charges of grand larceny, which carries a sentence of up to 10 years in prison.

They pleaded not guilty.

The district attorney’s office asked that Gomes and Pomey be released without imposing bail. The students were never taken into custody on the charges, and the district attorney said personal recognizance—a defendant’s promise to return to court—would be enough to ensure both students would appear at their next court date.

Prosecutors chose to treat both cases identically, according to Seth I. Horowitz, spokesperson for the Middlesex County District Attorney’s Office.

But on May 1, Pomey filed a motion to be tried separately from Gomes, arguing that their separate defenses are “irreconcilable and mutually antagonistic.”

According to the court filing, Pomey will allege Gomes was responsible for the embezzlement while Gomes will claim that “Pomey benefitted to a great[er] extent from the alleged thefts than the amount she returned to Hasty Pudding Theatricals.”

Albert H. Pomey, Suzanne’s father, sent a cashier’s check to the Pudding on Jan. 17 in the amount of $23,427.15.

Pomey also filed a motion on May 1 to suppress her statement to HUPD, contesting that she did not understand that she waived her Fifth Amendment rights during the questioning, which would make her statement inadmissible in court.

In a supporting affidavit to her suppression motion, Pomey said that when Mederos asked her to sign a piece of paper at the beginning of her questioning on Sept. 24, she “did not understand” that the paper was a waiver of her constitutional rights.

In her affidavit, Pomey also said she was not aware that she was under investigation when she met with police on Sept. 24.

“I was lead [sic] to believe the interview only concerned potential charges against Randy Gomes,” her affidavit reads.

“I did not ask for a lawyer because I did not understand I could ask for a lawyer. I was extremely nervous, so much so that it was hard for me to understand exactly what was going on.”

Pomey also said the police “intimidated” and “continuously taunted” her.

“I did not understand that I could simply refuse to talk,” she said.

Pomey said in the affidavit that not until half-way through the hour-long interview did Mederos tell her she was under investigation.

“I was extremely distraught and began crying during the interview and tried to explain to the police that I was ‘not a bad person and did not intend to steal any money,’” she said in the affidavit.

While HUPD spokesperson Steven G. Catalano said he could not comment on the specifics of the case, he said it was not unusual for a defense attorney to attempt to suppress a client’s statement.

“The filing of this motion is a usual defense attorney tactic any time there is a confession made,” Catalano said last month. “We are confident that the evidence will speak for itself opposed to the defense attorney’s tactic.”

Gomes and Pomey are next scheduled to appear in court on June 11, when the motions will be heard.

Graduation Day?

Despite the court proceedings, Gomes and Pomey continued to attend classes and remain registered as students of the College.

The Administrative Board has not required them to withdraw from Harvard.

“The Board will not usually taken any action against a student while their case is being heard in court,” said David B. Fithian, secretary of the Ad Board.

According to Fithian, though, the College will not ordinarily grant a degree to students while there are criminal proceedings against them.

At the time this article went to press, the Faculty had not yet decided whether to award Gomes and Pomey a degree.

Fithian said that even if students are not receiving degrees, the House may decide to let them “robe up and march with their classmates.”

Courtney B. Lamberth, senior tutor of Winthrop House, where Gomes and Pomey live, said the House administration would not comment on individual students.

—Staff writer Amit R. Paley can be reached at paley@fas.harvard.edu.

Want to keep up with breaking news? Subscribe to our email newsletter.

Tags