Doesn't intending to kill him affect what they can be charged with? Just because he made it easier doesn't mean they weren't executing their steps in a pre-meditated murder.

We all have responsibilities not to put ourselves in danger. But unless you're Zimmerman, the person who sets out to kill you because of or despite your carelessness is still culpable.

The FrangelicO in the frosting (not Frangelica like they kept saying) should have scuttled the whole thing anyway

Why?

If they only did the brownies, I don't think you could prove intent, "If only he had asked what was in the brownies, we could have warned him!" *bats innocent eyes* The stair and the brake lines show intent and a pattern of actions, I think, but the brownies alone could be a "tragic accident".

Because it would smell (and taste) of hazelnuts. As opposed to the almond milk in the batter, which wouldn't be detectable.

the brownies alone could be a "tragic accident".

But they knew he took something that would kill him, and made no attempt to stop him. And then they staged a suicide scene. No intent there?

Because it would smell (and taste) of hazelnuts

Frangelico smells of sugar to me. What nut did he have the reaction to earlier? Because if you've never tasted hazelnuts, you can't detect them by taste. Hell, if the first time you tasted them you went on to almost die, the flavour might be overshadowed by the almost dying.

Fair enough. It just seemed unnecessarily foolish (even given the criminal masterminds in question) to cover them in something nut-flavored after all the trouble they took to conceal.

the brownies alone could be a "tragic accident".

But they knew he took something that would kill him, and made no attempt to stop him.

That's why I used the quotation marks. Without all the other incidents and all the other circumstances, it might have passed. They could claim they forgot he was allergic, or that they tried to warn him but, being the ass that he was, he ignored them, or that they didn't realize he was having a reaction because their hearing "isn't what it used to be". Plus, if it had been just anaphylactic shock, without the prior injury (and the staged gas leak), it probably would never have caught Dr. Morales' eye in the first place. I'm not saying that it wouldn't have been murder, just that they might well have gotten away with it (if they hadn't done all the other stuff on top of it).

And then they staged a suicide scene. No intent there?

Naw, that was just pretty dumb.

I thought that the real issue was that they heard him gasping for help and let him die. That to me was the WORST for some reason. Clearly they wanted him dead and essentially planned to kill him twice over, but what kind of person are you to listen to someone moaning for help and say "fuck it?"

it probably would never have caught Dr. Morales' eye in the first place

If it wasn't caught as a murder, then yeah. they could have gotten away with it. But once they suspected foul play, they found the 911 recording, and established that Remington Steele's secretary *had* to be lying (I'm pretty sure they suspected it just from listening to the well-manicured story) because she was bat-blind. Those are the only red flags I remember, which given my brain is unlikely to be all of them.

what kind of person are you to listen to someone moaning for help and say "fuck it?"

They thought he was having sex with the one-armed manScarface.

So, Major Crimes - I don't watch it but I am tempted by Ron Glass. Worth catching a rerun?

Not their best effort (and sadly that applies in particular to Ron Glass).