Quote :

"Here's a letter someone sent to Roy Cooper. http://www.docstoc.com/docs/79264054/AG-letter"

and the sad part is that he probably tossed that shit out saying "well, the jury found him guilty so fuck it"

5/11/2011 3:58:22 PM

Sounds like a job for some TWW intervention. I'm printing that letter off tonight and sending it certified mail to Roy. I suggest we all do this.

5/11/2011 4:02:37 PM

shit I have stamps at my desk

I'll print it now and mail it to good ole Roy

Attorney General Roy Cooper
9001 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-9001

5/11/2011 4:07:09 PM

don't you think he'd just ignore it if its the same letter everytime?


Don't get me wrong, I'll send a copy out daily if it'll work, or at least help.

5/11/2011 4:08:02 PM

a) I can't write it any better than that

b) if he starts getting a shit load of them he has to think about it

5/11/2011 4:10:48 PM

I plan on writing my own letter...but this is a good start to get the office's attention.

5/11/2011 4:11:04 PM

I'll add that I'm not the originator but that I agree with it's content 100%

5/11/2011 4:12:29 PM

I'm sending a letter today, pretty much the same as the letter above but tweaked a bit and stating that I'm not the original writer.

5/11/2011 4:18:34 PM

is anyone else having trouble accessing the document? The page is all fucked up for me.

Can someone post the content here?

5/11/2011 4:20:58 PM

WORDS


Attorney General Roy Cooper
9001 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-9001

Dear Mr. Cooper:


This letter is in reference to the Brad Cooper murder trial. I watched the entire trial and I feel I need to make you and others aware of several things that occurred during the investigation and trial that have me feeling very concerned about the judicial system in NC.

From the beginning, all the information provided by one witness, Jessica Adam was taken as fact. She was the person who placed the initial call to police indicating that she thought something happened to her friend. It was as if she already knew Nancy was dead but that would be impossible, unless she knew something more than she’s admitting. She told police: The Coopers only used All detergent, Nancy always wore her necklace, ducks and sticks were present in the house on the Friday before the murder, Nancy never ran alone and Nancy was expected there to paint that morning. Every single one of these things was proven to be false during the trial except for the painting plans but even that is questionable at best since it conflicts with other information from witnesses. CPD built their entire case on this information as signs of Brad’s guilt and put blinders on to all other possibilities. This evidence so much convinced police of his involvement that they failed to investigate other people Nancy was involved with, ignored 15 eyewitnesses who claimed to see her that morning, and did not follow up with reports that the 4 year old child saw her mother that morning. The misinformation she supplied was lies but police believed every word of it. CPD should not have fallen so strongly under her influence. I expect police detectives to think objectively.

Attorney Alice Stubbs was representing Nancy’s parents in the custody fight. It is quite obvious collusion took place between Ms. Stubbs and CPD. The questions she asked were so specific that only the police could have possibly known those details, ie. regarding whether Nancy drank coffee that morning, which way he drove to the store that morning, what time he went to bed that night, etc. It is clear they met before the deposition and it is clear she was given a list of questions to ask Mr. Cooper. Yet, when Detective Daniels was on the stand he denied ever meeting with her to discuss the details. Someone needs to investigate the legality of the 6 hour deposition he was subjected to.

Nancy Cooper’s blackberry cell phone: It is now a fact that evidence shows Detective Young erased all information from the phone and also destroyed the sim card intentionally. The timeline is very interesting and clearly shows, in my opinion the purposeful destruction of police evidence that could have potentially exonerated the defendant, or at least provided important leads in the case. The defense attorney, Howard Kurtz sent a letter to Detective Daniels requesting the careful handling of the phone since they thought there could be important information contained on it. Nine days later (in August ‘08), Detective Young allegedly wiped the phone of all data accidentally per instructions from AT&T. He did not document this, did not record a name of the representative, nothing. One month later he requested a search warrant for the phone and at that point the phone was permanently erased/destroyed. This was verified by Ben Levitan during the trial that the actual phone wipe occurred in September. Detailed phone records are available from AT&T for 9 months. CPD sent a letter to defense 9 months, 2 weeks later informing them that the phone was wiped. Thus they had no ability to retrieve even the detailed records that would have shown text messages and cell tower information. Another interesting things is that during a recorded police interview with Hannah Prichard and Detective Dismukes, Dismukes told her “we already got what we needed from the phone”. I am requesting that an immediate investigation be done regarding the intentional destruction of this evidence.

Chief Bazemore made the statement just a few days after Nancy was found that this was “Domestic violence of the worst kind”. That, combined with Judge Sasser declining to give him custody condemned him before he was even tried. Are we to believe that did not influence the jury? Additionally, now that we know the Durham police found the Google map search in September ‘08, it is clear that Brad was tricked into submitting to the deposition with the thought that it was to regain custody of his children when in reality, it was an interrogation carried out by CPD via Alice Stubbs. That explains why he was indicted right after the deposition. This is not what citizens of NC want or expect from law enforcement. This was wrong.

Detective Daniels and Detective Young were extremely evasive while being questioned by defense. Neither wanted to answer the questions and the judge sustained just about every objection possible. He really showed bias during this questioning which again, I‘m sure the jury picked up on. If they were certain they had the right guy, they should have been able to respond with confidence. I didn’t see that and it’s greatly diminished my comfort level with detectives showing indications of hiding the facts of the case.

The computer:
We know that it was on and running for 27 hours while in the custody of CPD at the Cooper residence. At that time, files were altered. They did not follow forensic protocol.
Defense had evidence from two witnesses that showed tampering occurred and the Google map search of the site the body was found was placed on the computer. I don’t want Brad Cooper to have to wait 2 years for an appeal. Something needs to be done now. Why should he have to suffer for the fault of the judge for not allowing this evidence to be heard? Additionally, the forensic exam should have been performed by a neutral party and videotaped and both the state and defense should have had equal access to all data and forensic tools. It is not fair to hide behind “National security” when a man’s life is at stake.

The soil analysis:
In 2010 CPD decided to do a soil analysis from the site where the body was found, the Cooper neighborhood, and Lake Johnson. I would love to know who authorized the protocol for this study because it’s comical. They used Brad Cooper’s shoes that he wore while searching for his wife in wooded areas in the neighborhood and compared it to soil samples for the other areas mentioned above. They found mica on the shoes and mica at Fielding Drive and Lake Johnson, but the composition on the shoes did not match that of Fielding Drive and as a scientist, it is funny to me that they did this evaluation without a control sample and the test sample was a shoe that was worn while searching, but not what he was wearing in the Harris Teeter videos the morning his wife disappeared. As a taxpayer, I am not pleased with paying for this testing that shows absolutely nothing. What was the goal? To confuse the jury?

I watched the entire trial and throughout, on several occasions Judge Gessner responded with a very negative tone toward defense and I felt that showed clear bias in front of the jury. He allowed a lot of hearsay and gossip from the state and allowed them to go on and on wearing down the jury, presenting every item that CPD tested that was not in fact evidence of anything (such as the mica). He allowed the 6 hour deposition into the trial and when the parts that were supposed to be edited out were not, he clearly was not concerned about it. Computer evidence was a very big part of this case and he succeeded in keeping out the defense‘s evidence of computer tampering. I want to know how a judge can justify doing this.

The prosecution presented weeks of evidence that had no impact on this case and provided no proof. They showed the jury the mica testing, DNA analysis of fibers, every piece of evidence collected and brought witness after witness on the stand to confirm that Brad Cooper had an affair. None of it pointed toward Brad Cooper. If anything, I interpreted the lack of evidence as further proof that this man is innocent. But they wore the jury down and when it was finally time for the defense to present their case, shortly into it, the jury sent Judge Gessner a note stating that they wanted their lives back. That, to me is not right and definitely influenced the verdict since they wanted out of there so desperately. Judge Gessner did nothing to address this and it seems likely he allowed that note to influence the remainder of the proceedings such as disallowing a key defense witness to testify.

Please, I urge you to investigate this case immediately. Many of us are deeply troubled that this could happen in our court system. This was not a fair trial, guilty or innocent and something needs to be done about it now. It left me feeling as if the state of NC abused their powers to win a case so that Cary, NC could maintain it’s image and CPD would suffer no ill consequences of their (criminal) actions of destroying and tampering with key evidence. The prosecutors and the judge worked together to assure that Brad Cooper would be the scapegoat so that Cary, NC could keep it’s safe, small town image. This is not acceptable to me. If this kind of thing is allowed to occur in our judicial system, there is no need to even go through the formalities. Let’s just start locking people up on gut feelings because that is exactly what happened here.

5/11/2011 4:26:34 PM

due to no signature i am assuming DivaBaby19 sent this letter

5/11/2011 4:30:11 PM

I just copied the letter in that link

I have added my own portion plus a signature

dick for brains

5/11/2011 4:31:04 PM

thanks for helping out the people who can't click links

5/11/2011 4:32:36 PM

That girl always has dick on her brain

5/11/2011 4:34:23 PM

so what, you guys are signing this with:

"Not the original author but agree wholeheartedly,


sig"


[Edited on May 11, 2011 at 4:35 PM. Reason : gg]

5/11/2011 4:35:32 PM

^^FACT!

If Doubledown would stop being an ass he'd see someone asked for the letter since it was all fucked up when he clicked the link.

^I wrote a paragraph before that explaining my thoughts and how I agreed with what was written. Then wrote a closing paragraph. Then signed my name.

[Edited on May 11, 2011 at 4:37 PM. Reason : E]

5/11/2011 4:36:21 PM

^thanks

5/11/2011 4:40:56 PM

Good summary of the trial but written like a message board post. Too many contractions, missing (or added) commas, etc...just seems informal to me. A good start, but it can be said more eloquently.

Still haven't heard back from Kurtz's office yet. I imagine they are overwhelmed with emails and letters right now. I was hoping to get back some info on how to donate to the cause in order to offset some of the expenses I'm sure Brad no longer has the money to cover. Anyone have another idea of who we could contact that was forking over $$ to help Brad during his defense?

5/11/2011 4:44:42 PM

He said there would be a link off the Kurtz office website to donate money/time/computer skills/anything to help.

5/11/2011 4:51:26 PM

^^ That's what I'm saying. There needs to be a level of legibility to add legitimacy.


That entire letter is really poorly written.

5/11/2011 5:14:08 PM

Give him/her a break... They are a scientist

5/11/2011 5:15:41 PM

It's the content. Not the quality.

5/11/2011 6:20:10 PM

if there's one thing I've learned over the years, quality goes just as far if not further than content

5/11/2011 7:24:18 PM

We're totally talking about dong right?

5/11/2011 7:33:40 PM

methinks youthinks about dong too much

5/11/2011 7:49:00 PM

Well then why don't one of you fix the errors and post the fix.

5/11/2011 8:50:25 PM

Wow, I am with kiljadn here, signing your name to that letter isn't a good idea. It does read like a forum post.

5/12/2011 5:45:00 PM

Well then why don't one of you fix the errors and post the fix.

5/12/2011 5:47:36 PM

Yes do that ok!

5/12/2011 6:13:54 PM

It isn't that simple. I don't even think a rewrite will fix that, probably best to just start over.

Quote :

"I watched the entire trial and throughout, on several occasions Judge Gessner responded with a very negative tone toward defense and I felt that showed clear bias in front of the jury. He allowed a lot of hearsay and gossip from the state and allowed them to go on and on wearing down the jury, presenting every item that CPD tested that was not in fact evidence of anything (such as the mica). "

It might as well say "Little Billy was on the playground at recess picking on the other kids, what are you going to do about it?"

I think a more effective letter would display less opinion and conjecture, the idea is to succinctly and coherently state that this trial was flawed and ask for an investigation. But I have the feeling this is barking up the wrong tree, the validity of the trial will be dealt with through the existing appellate process.

Perhaps a more viable avenue to a meaningful resolution might be to point out that Alice Stubbs colluded with Cary PD, and what they gained from that provided them momentum towards Brad Cooper. They then took what was an investigation into a murdered woman and turned it over to the state atty. who made it into a 1st degree murder trial. A trial charging a man who there was not enough real evidence to prove a case against.
I am sure the other parts of the letter concerning the handling of the actual trial will be brought up in the appeal process and if the verdict is overturned at that time I am sure they will be looking at Judge Gessner more closely and things of that nature but if what happened between Alice Stubbs and Cary PD was some sort of ethical violation then that should be addressed immediately shouldn't it?
Ask yourself if the same family attorney that Nancy was using for her divorce hadn't been hired by the Rentzzz when they wanted custody of the girls, would this case have played differently? What if Alice Stubbs hadn't conducted that deposition? What about people that coordinated their stories prior to talking to the police- or changed their statements after making them- or blatantly lied, (all well before the trial) should any information given by those people have been used to bring charges against Brad Cooper?

[Edited on May 12, 2011 at 6:48 PM. Reason : process]

5/12/2011 6:46:40 PM

i only scanned over the letter, but has anyone actually fact checked it?

(not trying to rain on any parades or anything)

5/12/2011 6:56:49 PM

^^You really surprise me in this thread. Sometimes I think you aren't paying attention at all, and then you go and post something very logical.

I agree. Any letter written should be void of opinions and "I feel" sentiments. The law doesn't care about how you feel, and neither does Roy Cooper. But that letter is a good basis and summation of the case. But it could be worded more strongly to point out that these are factual basis where obvious bias is shown. For instance: Judge Gessner allowed hearsay evidence in throughout the trial, despite objections by the defense. This is a violation of the 6th Amendment. Or "Judge Gessner refused to allow Jay Ward to testify as an expert. He was qualified in x y and z, and clearly met the judicial standard as an expert (more knowledgeable on the subject that the jury). By preventing Mr. Ward from testifying, the judge erred enough that it could have changed the outcome of the case. Had the jury been allowed to hear evidence of tampering from Mr. Ward (or Giovanni Masucci), Brad Cooper may not be in prison today."

By keeping feelings out, and speaking in concrete terms, it's about following the law, instead of making viewers happy.

[Edited on May 12, 2011 at 6:58 PM. Reason : ^]

5/12/2011 6:58:20 PM

Fact checking, there are actually very few errors:

Quote :

" This letter is in reference to the Brad Cooper murder trial. I watched the entire trial and I feel I need to make you and others aware of several things that occurred during the investigation and trial that have me feeling very concerned about the judicial system in NC. From the beginning, all the information provided by one witness, Jessica Adam was taken as fact. She was the person who placed the initial call to police indicating that she thought something happened to her friend. It was as if she already knew Nancy was dead but that would be impossible, unless she knew something more than she’s admitting. She told police: The Coopers only used All detergent, Nancy always wore her necklace, ducks and sticks were present in the house on the Friday before the murder, Nancy never ran alone and Nancy was expected there to paint that morning. Every single one of these things was proven to be false during the trial except for the painting plans but even that is questionable at best since it conflicts with other information from witnesses. CPD built their entire case on this information as signs of Brad’s guilt and put blinders on to all other possibilities. This evidence so much convinced police of his involvement that they failed to investigate other people Nancy was involved with, ignored 15 16 eyewitnesses who claimed to see her that morning, and did not follow up with reports that the 4 year old child saw her mother that morning. The misinformation she supplied was lies but police believed every word of it. CPD should not have fallen so strongly under her influence. I expect police detectives to think objectively. Attorney Alice Stubbs was representing Nancy’s parents in the custody fight. It is quite obvious collusion took place between Ms. Stubbs and CPD. The questions she asked were so specific that only the police could have possibly known those details, ie. regarding whether Nancy drank coffee that morning, which way he drove to the store that morning, what time he went to bed that night, etc. It is clear they met before the deposition and it is clear she was given a list of questions to ask Mr. Cooper. Yet, when Detective Daniels was on the stand he denied ever meeting with her to discuss the details. He denied giving her any non-public details. Someone needs to investigate the legality of the 6 hour deposition he was subjected to. Nancy Cooper’s blackberry cell phone: It is now a fact that evidence shows Detective Young erased all information from the phone and also destroyed the sim card intentionally. The timeline is very interesting and clearly shows, in my opinion the purposeful destruction of police evidence that could have potentially exonerated the defendant, or at least provided important leads in the case. The defense attorney, Howard Kurtz sent a letter to Detective Daniels requesting the careful handling of the phone since they thought there could be important information contained on it. Nine days later (in August ‘08), Detective Young allegedly wiped the phone of all data accidentally per instructions from AT&T. He did not document this, did not record a name of the representative, nothing. One month later he requested a search warrant for the phone and at that point the phone was permanently erased/destroyed. This was verified by Ben Levitan during the trial that the actual phone wipe occurred in September. Detailed phone records are available from AT&T for 9 months. CPD sent a letter to defense 9 months, 2 weeks later informing them that the phone was wiped. Thus they had no ability to retrieve even the detailed records that would have shown text messages and cell tower information. Another interesting things is that during a recorded police interview with Hannah Prichard and Detective Dismukes, Dismukes told her “we already got what we needed from the phone”. I am requesting that an immediate investigation be done regarding the intentional destruction of this evidence. Chief Bazemore made the statement just a few days [this statement was made during the arrest] after Nancy was found that this was “Domestic violence of the worst kind”. That, combined with Judge Sasser declining to give him custody condemned him before he was even tried. Are we to believe that did not influence the jury? Additionally, now that we know the Durham police found the Google map search in September ‘08, it is clear that Brad was tricked into submitting to the deposition with the thought that it was to regain custody of his children when in reality, it was an interrogation carried out by CPD via Alice Stubbs. That explains why he was indicted right after the deposition. This is not what citizens of NC want or expect from law enforcement. This was wrong. Detective Daniels and Detective Young were extremely evasive while being questioned by defense. Neither wanted to answer the questions and the judge sustained just about every objection possible. He really showed bias during this questioning which again, I‘m sure the jury picked up on. If they were certain they had the right guy, they should have been able to respond with confidence. I didn’t see that and it’s greatly diminished my comfort level with detectives showing indications of hiding the facts of the case. The computer: We know that it was on and running for 27 hours while in the custody of CPD at the Cooper residence. At that time, files were altered. They did not follow forensic protocol. Defense had evidence from two witnesses that showed tampering occurred and the Google map search of the site the body was found was placed on the computer. I don’t want Brad Cooper to have to wait 2 years for an appeal. Something needs to be done now. Why should he have to suffer for the fault of the judge for not allowing this evidence to be heard? Additionally, the forensic exam should have been performed by a neutral party and videotaped and both the state and defense should have had equal access to all data and forensic tools. It is not fair to hide behind “National security” when a man’s life is at stake. The soil analysis: In 2010 CPD decided to do a soil analysis from the site where the body was found, the Cooper neighborhood, and Lake Johnson. I would love to know who authorized the protocol for this study because it’s comical. They used Brad Cooper’s shoes that he wore while searching for his wife in wooded areas in the neighborhood and compared it to soil samples for the other areas mentioned above. They found mica on the shoes and mica at Fielding Drive and Lake Johnson, but the composition on the shoes did not match that of Fielding Drive and as a scientist, it is funny to me that they did this evaluation without a control sample and the test sample was a shoe that was worn while searching, but not what he was wearing in the Harris Teeter videos the morning his wife disappeared. As a taxpayer, I am not pleased with paying for this testing that shows absolutely nothing. What was the goal? To confuse the jury? I watched the entire trial and throughout, on several occasions Judge Gessner responded with a very negative tone toward defense and I felt that showed clear bias in front of the jury. He allowed a lot of hearsay and gossip from the state and allowed them to go on and on wearing down the jury, presenting every item that CPD tested that was not in fact evidence of anything (such as the mica). He allowed the 6 hour deposition into the trial and when the parts that were supposed to be edited out were not, he clearly was not concerned about it. Computer evidence was a very big part of this case and he succeeded in keeping out the defense‘s evidence of computer tampering. I want to know how a judge can justify doing this. The prosecution presented weeks of evidence that had no impact on this case and provided no proof. They showed the jury the mica testing, DNA analysis of fibers, every piece of evidence collected and brought witness after witness on the stand to confirm that Brad Cooper had an affair. None of it pointed toward Brad Cooper. If anything, I interpreted the lack of evidence as further proof that this man is innocent. But they wore the jury down and when it was finally time for the defense to present their case, shortly into it, the jury sent Judge Gessner a note stating that they wanted their lives back. That, to me is not right and definitely influenced the verdict since they wanted out of there so desperately. Judge Gessner did nothing to address this and it seems likely he allowed that note to influence the remainder of the proceedings such as disallowing a key defense witness to testify. Please, I urge you to investigate this case immediately. Many of us are deeply troubled that this could happen in our court system. This was not a fair trial, guilty or innocent and something needs to be done about it now. It left me feeling as if the state of NC abused their powers to win a case so that Cary, NC could maintain it’s image and CPD would suffer no ill consequences of their (criminal) actions of destroying and tampering with key evidence. The prosecutors and the judge worked together to assure that Brad Cooper would be the scapegoat so that Cary, NC could keep it’s safe, small town image. This is not acceptable to me. If this kind of thing is allowed to occur in our judicial system, there is no need to even go through the formalities. Let’s just start locking people up on gut feelings because that is exactly what happened here."

[Edited on May 12, 2011 at 7:03 PM. Reason : ]

5/12/2011 7:02:38 PM

Quote :

"^^You really surprise me in this thread. Sometimes I think you aren't paying attention at all, and then you go and post something very logical."

PM SEND

[Edited on May 12, 2011 at 8:36 PM. Reason : ]

5/12/2011 8:34:32 PM

The portion of the deposition that was not supposed to be shown but was could use a little more emphasis in the letter as well. Especially considering they went first degree and that could have been construed as evidence of it being premeditated.

5/12/2011 9:25:30 PM

Why was the portion of the deposition (that was shown and not meant to be) evidence of premeditation? I thought it was just him saying that he had contacted his previous girlfriends as a reference for the psych exam prior to deposition? Maybe you're seeing something here that I'm not.

But I do agree that needs to be brought out. It was fully intentional that it was played, and EVERY person who say the arguments that morning understand it was not supposed to be shown.

[Edited on May 12, 2011 at 9:30 PM. Reason : ]

5/12/2011 9:29:13 PM

Woops I wasn't thinking, forgot he contacted the ex after she was killed. But either way it sort of implies it was convenient for him that she was killed and he could go looking for the exes leading the jury to maybe think it was premeditated.

5/12/2011 9:40:28 PM

^Definitely agree with that. Puts the thought into their heads that he didn't really care about her if he's already contacting ex girlfriends without explaining why (which is where the cutoff was).

5/12/2011 9:50:43 PM

Quote :

"I thought it was just him saying that he had contacted his previous girlfriends as a reference for the psych exam prior to deposition?"

the thing is, he didn't actually say it that specifically in the deposition, which is why it was not supposed to be shown. What they asked was "when was the last time that you spoke to your ex" and he responded with "a couple weeks ago." The jury could rightfully think "gee, he's been talking to his ex, so maybe he planned on killing his wife and getting back with his ex." The deposition specifically left out the fact that he was told to contact his ex by a court appointed psych. Thus the reason it should not have been played. And, frankly, that's why the scumbag Boz intentionally played it. The judge can get up there and say "you aren't supposed to think about this, cause of such and such," but at that point, the thought has been firmly planted in the jury's mind. It should have been declared a mistrial right then and there, with prejudice against the state for such shenanigans, meaning BC couldn't be tried again. But, that would have required an actually impartial judge, which this case clearly did not have

5/12/2011 10:06:56 PM

^Agreed. One of the major reasons I find Boz too unethical to have EVER voted Guilty. How can you trust ANYTHING he tells you??

But to be clear--the actual deposition did have his explanation, saying it was in reference to his psychiatrist's request. However, the prosecution cut it after "When did you last contact them?" "A few weeks ago." And that's where the video cut was. The sticking point was that you can either include the reason, or cut out that portion all together. They were supposed to cut out that portion completely, and they didn't. Instead, they cut it in the middle of the conversation, but before the explanation. At the point where the ONLY purpose was to mislead and prejudice.

[Edited on May 12, 2011 at 10:11 PM. Reason : ]

5/12/2011 10:08:33 PM

moreover, for that episode, alone, all of the prosecuting attorneys should be disbarred. That is something that simply cannot happen. You can't talk about something like that for two fucking hours and then "accidentally" play the wrong video. These are supposed to be fucking professionals, and they "let" something like that "slip through?" Either it was intentional, or they are fucking incompetent.

5/12/2011 10:12:06 PM

I fully believe it was intentional. Judging by the faces of the people in the room when it all went down, I don't think they ever even told the intern (the bow tie guy who was cutting the video) that he was supposed to fix that part.

[Edited on May 12, 2011 at 10:17 PM. Reason : ]

5/12/2011 10:13:23 PM

GUYS

http://www.ncbar.gov/public/filing.asp

stop talking about doing it and either do it or don't do it. it sounds like from this thread alone they should get 2 dozen of these. they cannot ignore that.

5/12/2011 10:17:51 PM

I just want to add, Roy Cooper says "cupper".

5/13/2011 12:32:09 AM

I want to do something but I dont want to sound like a message board poster

5/13/2011 6:47:50 AM

This outcome makes me very sad.

5/13/2011 2:39:17 PM

Free Brad Cooper T-shirt
http://217282.spreadshirt.com/free-brad-cooper-A7495705/customize/color/1

5/17/2011 8:35:45 PM

LIKE

5/17/2011 8:36:42 PM

i love how you cant even read the diagram

5/17/2011 8:38:13 PM

Haha, we made one of those diagrams about our circle of friends once. Then it depressed us and we tore it up.

5/17/2011 8:40:03 PM