To refresh your memory, about what was posted and
if it does or does not help the defense strategy:
Completely disagree with the bolded. Any history of propofol does not help the defense when put into proper context.
Of COURSE it does.
That IS the defense. We already know what they will say, that Michael ALREADY had some sort of craving for propofol, and bullied Murray (which I do NOT believe). I've already explained this.
No one has said that Michael was asking for or requesting propofol willy nilly. For all the times any doctor or "source" or whoever has said Michael inquired about it (whether one believes them or not), he was"allegedly" ALWAYS insistent on the person knowing what they were doing.
We don't have proof that he "asked for it," at ALL, except as could normally happen during a dental procedure. Some here take Nurse Lee's statements at face-value. I don't. She helps the DEFENSE.
I'd prefer to give Michael the benefit of the doubt, rather than whoever may crawl out of the woodwork.
He asked for anesthesiologist who would clearly be the person who knew what they were doing.
.
And you know this HOW? This doesn't seem to be getting through, that the defense strategy will be that "
Michael was seeking propofol."
So why ASSUME that, and help them? Something is very very wrong here.
There has been NO evidence that Michael has let just anyone give him propofol....again, that's whether one believes any of the doctors, nurses, etc.. who mentioned him inquiring about it.
At this point there has been NO testimony, under oath, from
any medical professional, that Michael "let anyone" give him propofol outside of a normal procedure in a clinic or hospital. All there have been are tabloid references, perpetuated here, by various people.
And whatever Michael's participation in this was, again, this is not about him. It's about Murray taking responsibility for HIS part in this...whether Michael asked for it or not...whether he knew the risks or not. This is about MURRAY purchasing propofol, storing it in the house, and administering it even tho he he was not properly licensed to do so NOR having the proper equipment on hand for lifesaving purposes. I would go out on a limb and say whatever RISK Michael took, it was becuz he was given a false sense of security by Murray that the manner in which he was giving propofol was safe...even if it was different from however Michael MAY have received it in the past for dental work, etc.
This is ABSOLUTELY about Michael!
Michael did not "participate" in his own death. (read your bolded statement, above)
This trial is about Murray and HIS WILLFUL negligence. I believe one of the ppl who testified at the preliminary hearing said it best that EVEN IF someone wants to say Michael was known to be addicted to propofol...it was MURRAY who supplied the drug and left it within Michael's reach when he exited the room to pee or make calls.
Propofol is not an addictive substance. Why even suggest it? "
Left it in Michael's reach?" So you are believing that Michael injected it, or drank it? Really?
He does not, for one second, get a pass due to any percentage of responsibility that MAY be attributed to MJ. MJ's responsibility is moot, here...IMO. Whether it was 1% or 50%, Murray STILL has to pay for his own participation.
Michael was not responsible for his own death, 1%, or 50%. But, the defense will say that he WAS and THAT is what could get Murray community service instead of jail-time.
This is ALL ABOUT MURRAY. History of propofol has nothing to do with Murray's improper handling and rescuing in THIS particular incident.
This is "all about" Michael's murder. "
History of propofol" is what the defense will try to prove. That IS the defense, as far as I can see, to try to paint Michael as complicit in his own death, as YOU said, 1% or 50%.
All the other times Michael "MAY" have received it, he came out of it ALIVE. The only difference here was CONRAD MURRAY.
It's really not as simplistic as you seem to think. Murray may be convicted, but if it's felt that a "
superstar bullied him into giving propofol," he may get a very light sentence.
