The indictment against them alleges that Pomey admitted to her role in the thefts during the interview.

Pomey says in the affidavit that it wasn’t until half-way through the hour-long interview that Mederos told her she was under investigation by the police.

“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 says in the affidavit.

While HUPD spokesperson Steven G. Catalano said he could not comment on the specifics of the case, he said that 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. “We are confident that the evidence will speak for itself opposed to the defense attorney’s tactic.”

Neither Gomes’ lawyer nor DeMarco could be reached for comment yesterday.

Separate Ways

Pomey’s second motion at the May 1 Middlesex Superior Court hearing requested that she and her co-defendant Gomes be tried separately.

In the motion, DeMarco lists four grounds for the severance, including that Pomey “will put forward a defense implicating Randy Gomes and asserting that he is principally to blame for the alleged theft.”

Pomey “planned to and did return any funds that she had obtained from Hasty Pudding, in the amount of $23,427.15.”

He calls these differing defenses of Pomey and Gomes “irreconcilable and mutually antagonistic.”

DeMarco also writes that Gomes’ written statement, “would inculpate” Pomey, would be “inadmissible hearsay” if the two were tried separately.

Gomes’ handwritten statement, dated Sept. 24, 2001, and released Wednesday, reads in full: