"My problem is with advocating (or eliminating) a candidate above others based on their supposed mental state, given that it is extremely difficult to determine who was the most mentally and emotionally vulnerable that night."
Inger: Absolutely! There I think you've hit the nail squarely on the head.
And agreed. While we can "hip-shoot" *subjectively* about likely or unlikely candidates, that's about ALL we can really do.
Moody's likelihood, I think, is a good deal more *objectively* questionable though, since he just doesn't fit the "chief/first officer" descriptions often included in those accounts. It doesn't rule him out, I suppose, but I certainly wouldn't have pegged him for a candidate myself.
Stretched that far, I start to wonder, "Why not guess 'Archie Butt in full military dress' "? I know, wrong uniform, but he would assuredly look every inch an "officer". And there were some early, apocryphal tales of Major Butt brandishing his pistol and "maintaining discipline" to the end.
It's all fairly speculative. We know from Bill's excellent collection that there are some pretty convincing descriptions of *a* suicide (And lots of secondary accounts of varying reliability, both pro and con.) But we really don't have any "smoking gun" -- pardon the pun, it's inevitable -- when it comes to WHOM we might be talking about. (Nor is it absolutely guaranteed there *is* a "whom", though the evidence certainly suggests that.)
(God, I hate dealing in these gray areas -- so few good facts to "hitch your wagon" to!)