Larry King is introducing here right in the beginning as the nurse being with Michael with the words: "...so he begged her for the powerful sedative diprivan."
You don't see her correcting him in any way though you're right she didn't say it with her own words. However if she didn't mean it wouldn't you expect her correcting such an introduction?
Pretty interesting how often CNN is underlining 'begged her for drugs' etc.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OisnE7SQUdw&feature=related
You would expect it, but that's not what SHE said. Granted, I can see how ppl may have come to that conclusion.
Michael didn't beg her for propofol.
She said, "Michael begged me for propfol" on Jane Velez Mitchell.
Firpo Carr told her "Michael Jackson doesn't beg for anything."
Then she said, "I'm sorry. He asked."
Cherilyn never said this. Transcript to the entire interview below. Firpo is quoting her on something she NEVER said. I remember the interview and the minute he said it, I was like WTF that woman never said MJ begged for anything. He was simply repeating media reports and parroting others. Everyone is quoting this woman, yet no one can find where she actually said it. Amazing.
Btw...Lee was not in on this interview. Before Firpo commented, they simply played a video of her previously stating MJ "asked". The "I'm sorry" quote BY LEE does not exist here (more misquoting?).
Link:
http://archives.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0908/25/ijvm.01.html
Okay I'll be blunt and play the devil's advocate.
propofol history is probably the main reason we aren't seeing a murder charge here. A successful defense could argue that history of prior use and doctor shopping is demonstrating a willing participant that accepted the risks and Murray just happened to be the doctor in place when something went wrong.
Think about this : taking a gun and shooting someone is murder 1, if someone gives you a loaded gun and tells you to pull the trigger and you do that's assisted suicide.
IVM charge allows to overcome the above argument. In other words prosecution can argue "who cared whether Michael wanted it or not, the way Murray gave it to him was negligence".
Similarly any form of addiction history could be good enough to create reasonable doubt to believe that Michael could have self injected or drank propofol.
(remember reasonable doubt doesn't mean they have to prove it, or it doesn't have to be correct. with reasonable doubt all you need is one juror to think "it might have happened").
could be - and that would put the blame on Murray.
However the post I responded was quoting Lee that said that Michael asking for an anesthologist 2 weeks prior. why was that? because he knew Murray wasn't good enough? if that's the case you can see the defense argue that he still participated in Murray's treatment hence willingly took the risks.
the charge is IVM. there's no intent or motive in that charge. so I wouldn't expect that argument from the DA.
All true for IVM charge.
ps: I'll put a note here. I expect several doctors of MJ to be called to testify (Klein at least) and they will be called by Murray's defense. We'll see if I turn out to be right or wrong.
The issue is when all those doctors are called to testify how they put their conversations with Michael about propofol into context (how he genuinely may have felt this was a last resort to sleep for him). From what I've seen of the doctors' interviews (at least the ones on record speaking about it), I don't see anything that helps Murray, except that it confirms WHY Michael MAY have been iquiring about the drug. And yes, his reason for "MAYBE" inquiring about propofol is VERY important which is why it irks me when ppl try to dismiss it or won't acknowledge it (i.e. Jackson family). What happened from there on out is all on Murray's hands. Again, Michael died under HIS care, not any other doctor.
Also, let's remember, Dr. Kevorkian killed his patients WITH their consent (assisted suicides) and he was still charged with and convicted of 2nd-degree murder by a jury. So whether or not someone was, in any way, complicit in their own demise really isn't the issue, or rather, it shouldn't be, imo. I don't agree with the IVM charges, however, I
understand why that's all they are going for. My hope is if jurors wouldn't cut Dr. Kevorkian any slack, a jury could do the same for Murray in this case.
Now, had this all been done by Michael's own hand, all of his own doing, that's one thing. However, Murray's hands are the ones which made this all happen. HE purchased the propofol. HE disregarded his patient's well-being. HE agreed to alternative treatment for which he had zero experience. HE pumped all those sedatives into Michael all night into the next day. HE failed to preserve Michael's life after the fact in a reasonable manner, prefering to hide and conceal evidence instead...and that's what we know of based on those who witnessed him doing the hiding. Who knows WHAT he was doing before he ran downstairs to put on his "rescue" show.
Anyway, I agree...we'll just have to see how it plays out when the doctors take the stand. It's really up to the Prosecution to do their job and solicit the proper info and place that info into context for the jury to understand. Thus far, based on prelim, I personally think they are ready to do that. Of course, we won't know for sure until it all unfolds. I just think they are headed in the right direction at the mo, based on Walgren's words.
