Cherilyn called up the media and the police herself.
That's what I mean by planting the Propofol addiction story.
Dr. Murray murdered Michael Jackson with the Propofol.
Michael Jackson may have used Propofol before; but he was not addicted to it,
nor did he want it on the day of his murder.
There was an expert on CBS news who said it was almost
impossible to become addicted to Propofol, and in his entire
25 year career he knew of only one case.
There are alot of interesting things being discussed in this investigative forum, we're looking for information to better understand just what happened to Michael. What does get rather disheartening is reading statements by members as if they are DOCUMENTED facts. Maybe occasionally stating IMO, or "I think" this could be what happened, or "I believe" this and that. It's really more a matter of semantics to me, because discussing things and looking for answers is not a bad thing.
No, propofol is not addictive per se. Yes, there are documented cases of people, including physicians/residents/interns, using it to gain "pseudo-sleep" when necessary could be viewed as a dependency, not an addiction, big difference. I don't think anyone in this thread is saying Michael was "addicted" to propofol. However, unless I missed something, just where would anyone get the definitive idea that Michael DID NOT WANT IT on the early morning of his death? Imo, of all times, with the stress/rehearsals/insomnia and absolute need for sleep, this would have been the time he would have requested it, if indeed he did.
And about the "raid" of her office, yes they did go to her office with her knowledge and she cooperated, just like with multiple other people whom they followed through on looking for any information that would be deemed of interest. But some part of the puzzle is missing in my mind when it comes to Cherilyn going on television. The jury (me) is still out on that one, so to speak.
As for it being illegal to administer propofol in a home, I don't think illegal would be the appropriate term at this time. There is a move on to make it a controlled substance, hence making it illegal in many scenarios, but at this time "illegal" is not the correct term. Circumstances in this specific case may make it become manslaughter, etc., but as of now it is not illegal to simply have it in "possession". Illegally obtained is one thing, having it prescribed by a physician at this point is not. Circumstances surrounding administration of it is murky, but that should be changing soon.