Whodunnit? The Spoiler-Free Speculation Thread

[Chicago Redshirt]

I thought I would create a place for people to shoot their shot about who killed baby Charlie based on pure speculation/deduction. Please, no actual spoilers!

So what do we know about the killer(s) of baby Charlie?

He/she/they presumably

1. knew that Matthew was Baggerly's bastard son (or else why ask for such a high ransom)

2. had some level of juice to have so many people, including a crooked cop, in on the crime

3. used the thread on Charlie's eyes for some reason.

Through three episodes, there haven't been a ton of potential suspects in genereal presented.

Here's my general take:

Sister Alice: 40 percent. She's got the reach/juice, and several of the principal players (Herman, Matthew, Emily, George) are members of her church. Spinning stuff with the murder right could bring glory/power/money to the church. Plus being genre-savvy points to  the most famous actor besides the leads is usually most likely to have done it. But she seems (thus far) to be less a schemer and more a victim in her own right.

Sister Alice's mom/other church officials:  10  percent. Except for her not being played by Tatiana Maslany, everything about Sister Alice also applies to her mom and the rest of the church leaders. Mom is so sinister seeming that she almost has to be a red herring.

Herman Baggerly: 5 percent. He's got the juice, but I don't think he would terminate his own grandson. (See what I did there?)

The D.A.: 3 percent. I suppose trying to generate a sensational case that would elevate him to higher office is a possible motive, and he can boss people around. Still, it would be a little far afield.  

Matthew/Emily Dodson: 2 percent. I would applaud the writers for flipping the script and having Perry associated with defending a guilty party. But I don't see them as likely.

Characters unknown: There's still a lot of miles to travel and people to be introduced. It seems like three episodes in, we should have met the killer(s) but again, nothing says that TPTB have to stick to the rules.

 

[paigow]

Ennis 100% 

Holcomb 75%

Capt Morton 50% maybe actually stupid or insidiously cloaked evil

Unseen Chief of Police 25% Ennis is extorting every criminal ... How high up does the money go??

Edited July 7, 2020 by paigow

[LoveLeigh]

Ennis, Holcomb, and George 100%. George knew those cops and got them in on some get rich quick scheme which went wrong. 

Emily and Matthew 0 %

As to why Charlie's eyes were sewn, they were idiots who just wanted it to look like a random maniac kidnapped Charlie. And I think Charlie's death was accidental. 

[paigow]

Ennis is too evil and smart to confess during trial...one of the surviving, unseen accomplices is the weak link

[AnimeMania]

We all assumed that George was killed because he was one of the kidnappers, but he might also have been killed because he was an accountant for the church and discovered something he shouldn't have, maybe started blackmailing the church members. I still think Sister Alice's mother is extremely shady, she might have been sleeping with Herman Baggerly, since he mentioned he is always attracted to the wrong women.

[paigow]

6 hours ago, AnimeMania said:

I still think Sister Alice's mother is extremely shady, she might have been sleeping with Herman Baggerly, since he mentioned he is always attracted to the wrong women.

??? I thought he meant hot and slutty....

[paigow]

What if the real bio father of Charlie is not Dodson or George??? Then murder was the primary motive all along and the kidnapping merely obfuscation. 

Edited July 8, 2020 by paigow

[paigow]

Elder Brown must be dirty. Either he tipped off George that Baggerly had a bastard son /grandson or he is skimming the collections.

[paigow]

Strickland has to die or be forced to retire. No way Drake would join up as less than lead investigator. Similarly, no way Strickland would work for Drake. 

[LoveLeigh]

I am wondering why Sister is so involved in all of this. Why did she bail out Emily and take her in? That plot line is there for a reason. I think she is connected to that crime. I think she was George's lover. So if she gets control of Emily, she can control the whole outcome. Why else would Sister even be in this story? She was shoe horned in for a specific device in the story. Maybe she is connected to George's father? There is no reason for her to be so kind and devoted to Emily. It is like she is trying to cover her own tracks. I think she had something to do with the baby's eyes being sewn open.  

Edited July 21, 2020 by DakotaLavender

[shapeshifter]

2 minutes ago, DakotaLavender said:

I am wondering why Sister is so involved in all of this. Why did she bail out Emily and take her in? that plot line is there for a reason. I think she is connected to that crime. I think she was George's lover. So if she gets control of Emily, she can control the whole outcome. Why else would Sister even be in this story? She was shoe horned in for a specific device in the story. Maybe she is connected to George's father? There is no reason for her to be so kind and devoted to Emily. It is like she is trying to cover her own tracks. I think she had something to do with the baby's eyes being sewn open.  

Nah, I think Sister Alice was also slut shamed and maybe had a baby out of wedlock, so she sees this as a chance to fight back against those particular powers of darkness. 

[sistermagpie]

2 minutes ago, shapeshifter said:

Nah, I think Sister Alice was also slut shamed and maybe had a baby out of wedlock, so she sees this as a chance to fight back against those particular powers of darkness. 

That's my instinct, that this has unlocked some emotional key in her that's going to blow the lid off some things at her church.

[paigow]

Baggerly was outed as an adulterous man with little consequence. Probably not the only Elder in that boat.

Sister wants Emily as a tool to expose Brown and his traitors. Proving her innocence is a miracle he could never perform.

[paigow]

Perry will call Burger as a witness to discredit Barnes

Drake releases his rage monster and kills somebody! Preferably Ennis, but other dirty cops or Radiant Assembly Elders will do.

[shapeshifter]

On 7/20/2020 at 5:32 PM, sistermagpie said:

On 7/20/2020 at 5:28 PM, shapeshifter said:

Nah, I think Sister Alice was also slut shamed and maybe had a baby out of wedlock, so she sees this as a chance to fight back against those particular powers of darkness. 

That's my instinct, that this has unlocked some emotional key in her that's going to blow the lid off some things at her church.

John Lithgow and Tatiana Maslany have both been listed at the end of the opening credits following "with." 
I asked about this on this board and was told that was just a way of giving extra billing to big name award winners.
However, now that E.B. (Lithgow) is dead, I am wondering if Sister Alice might die at least in the finale, if not earlier.

Edited July 22, 2020 by shapeshifter

[Chicago Redshirt]

On 7/20/2020 at 5:24 PM, DakotaLavender said:

I am wondering why Sister is so involved in all of this. Why did she bail out Emily and take her in? That plot line is there for a reason. I think she is connected to that crime. I think she was George's lover. So if she gets control of Emily, she can control the whole outcome. Why else would Sister even be in this story? She was shoe horned in for a specific device in the story. Maybe she is connected to George's father? There is no reason for her to be so kind and devoted to Emily. It is like she is trying to cover her own tracks. I think she had something to do with the baby's eyes being sewn open.  

I mean, the question is still out there of how much Sister Alice believes her own BS. She could be doing all this just because she sincerely wants to help a member of her flock, because she thinks God is telling her to, or the like.

Or she could have empathy in some sort of proto-feminist way for Emily. As far as I remember, she didn't propose lifting a finger for hubby Matthew, who is also a member of the church.

Or she could be pissed that the coppers snatched Emily up in just through the funeral her church was presiding over.

Or it could be as you and other people say, that she has some sort of romantic or financial connection to George or the other kidnappers...

[shapeshifter]

55 minutes ago, Chicago Redshirt said:

Or she could have empathy in some sort of proto-feminist way for Emily.

This was my impression (Sister Alice has "empathy in some sort of proto-feminist way for Emily").
But I'm not sure how self-aware Sister Alice is. Does she realize this is what she's doing if this is her motive? If she doesn't even know the term "feminist," can she still act as one?

[LoveLeigh]

9 hours ago, Chicago Redshirt said:

I mean, the question is still out there of how much Sister Alice believes her own BS. She could be doing all this just because she sincerely wants to help a member of her flock, because she thinks God is telling her to, or the like.

Or she could have empathy in some sort of proto-feminist way for Emily. As far as I remember, she didn't propose lifting a finger for hubby Matthew, who is also a member of the church.

Or she could be pissed that the coppers snatched Emily up in just through the funeral her church was presiding over.

Or it could be as you and other people say, that she has some sort of romantic or financial connection to George or the other kidnappers...

I made a mistake above. I meant Emily's husband who maybe was sister's lover, not George. 

[Jextella]

I don't recall watching the original Perry Mason a whole lot.  I'm wondering if anyone has some history about trends regarding Perry's clients.  For example, were they often fault-free innocents or were they often innocent of the crime at hand but not necessarily good people?

What I recall is that Perry wins his cases because of ace detective work and that is why people watched. I don't recall rooting for the clients much.  I'm asking because Emily may still be involved in some sort of money matter but not directly responsible for the murder of her child.  A pawn in a larger game.

Was the meaning behind sewing the eyes open addressed? It seems unnecessary to the plot line if the crime was all about money. It seems there should be more to it - as if the perpetrator was trying to send some sort of morality message. 

We don't have many episodes to go.  If there is meaning to the eye-sewing, it seems there are two options thus far - either Father or Son Baggerly, or Mother or Daughter priestess.

I'm leaning toward Baggerly Jr.  When Baggerly Sr. calls his mother a whore (or something like that), he snaps back defending her.  Then in court, he calls his own wife a whore and questions whether the dead child was even his.  He's got the most motive from a psychological perspective.  It could have been his way of publicly exposing/shaming two people at once - his father and his wife - and the hypocrisy of the church.

Post amended:  I read elsewhere that at some point in the show, it was mentioned that the stichery was to help the child appear alive at time of the ransom/child swap.

...must rewatch.

Edited July 28, 2020 by Jextella

[Chicago Redshirt]

37 minutes ago, Jextella said:

I don't recall watching the original Perry Mason a whole lot.  I'm wondering if anyone has some history about trends regarding Perry's clients.  For example, were they often fault-free innocents or were they often innocent of the crime at hand but not necessarily good people?

What I recall is that Perry wins his cases because of ace detective work and that is why people watched. I don't recall rooting for the clients much.  I'm asking because Emily may still be involved in some sort of money matter but not directly responsible for the murder of her child.  A pawn in a larger game.

Was the meaning behind sewing the eyes open addressed? It seems unnecessary to the plot line if the crime was all about money. It seems ther must be more too it - as if the perpetrator was trying to send some sort of morality message. 

We don't have too many episodes to go.  If there is meaning to the eye sewing, it seems there are two options thus far - either Father or Son Baggerly, or Mother or Daughter priestess.

I'm leaning toward Baggerly Jr.  When Baggerly Sr. calls his mother a whore (or something like that), he snaps back defending her.  Then in court, he calls his own wife a whore and questions whether the dead child was even his.  He's got the most motive from a psychological perspective.  It could have been his way of publicly exposing/shaming two people at once - his father and his wife - and the hypocrisy of the church.

I'll take a bunch of thoughts about Raymond Burr Perry Mason to the Compare/Contrast thread.

It has not been directly addressed why the killer sewed Charlie's eyes open, and the plot thread, if you will excuse the pun, has not been picked up for a while. Chekhov's piece of red thread that Mason has in a matchbox presumably will come into play again. 

I don't think Matthew knew about Emily's affair until after he was arrested. I think it would be a bold step away from genre/franchise expectations for it to be Matthew, given that he was represented by the Good Guys, and the convention is that the Good Guys only represent the innocent. 

[Jextella]

8 hours ago, Chicago Redshirt said:

I'll take a bunch of thoughts about Raymond Burr Perry Mason to the Compare/Contrast thread.

It has not been directly addressed why the killer sewed Charlie's eyes open, and the plot thread, if you will excuse the pun, has not been picked up for a while. Chekhov's piece of red thread that Mason has in a matchbox presumably will come into play again. 

I don't think Matthew knew about Emily's affair until after he was arrested. I think it would be a bold step away from genre/franchise expectations for it to be Matthew, given that he was represented by the Good Guys, and the convention is that the Good Guys only represent the innocent. 

Yeah, I though the same thing about Matthew and Emily.  Early on, Perry felt Matthew was innocent and Della felt Emily was innocent.  Neither would support a guilty party if the goal of the show is to heroize Perry and Della.  However, attention quickly moved away from Matthew so there may still be a chance he's in on this thing.  Thinking more about it, though, you are probably right. 

Edited July 28, 2020 by Jextella

[Chicago Redshirt]

Here's what I think we know as of Ch. 6:

1. The mastermind behind the kidnapping/murder is still on the loose.

2. The mastermind had to have some level of money and clout to bring in the conspirators from Milwaukee and to enlist Ennis  in the first place.

3. The mastermind directed Ennis to kill the other conspirators.

4. JH -- the man seen at the end of Ch. 6  -- tells Perry that he was expecting Perry.

5. The mastermind knew of the Baggerly/Dodson connection which is why s/he demanded so much money.

I'm not quite locking it in, but I'm thinking that this is Baggerly. He wanted to create a scandalous crime to galvanize people and get them interested in his godly community of Girard. And he seems the sort to not be above spilling a little infant blood to do it. 

[Jextella]

9 minutes ago, Chicago Redshirt said:

Here's what I think we know as of Ch. 6:

1. The mastermind behind the kidnapping/murder is still on the loose.

2. The mastermind had to have some level of money and clout to bring in the conspirators from Milwaukee and to enlist Ennis  in the first place.

3. The mastermind directed Ennis to kill the other conspirators.

4. JH -- the man seen at the end of Ch. 6  -- tells Perry that he was expecting Perry.

5. The mastermind knew of the Baggerly/Dodson connection which is why s/he demanded so much money.

I'm not quite locking it in, but I'm thinking that this is Baggerly. He wanted to create a scandalous crime to galvanize people and get them interested in his godly community of Girard. And he seems the sort to not be above spilling a little infant blood to do it. 

My only non-logical thought is that Baggerly Sr. is too obvious, but that's neither here nor there, really.

[shapeshifter]

On 7/28/2020 at 9:57 AM, Chicago Redshirt said:

'm not quite locking it in, but I'm thinking that this is Baggerly. He wanted to create a scandalous crime to galvanize people and get them interested in his godly community of Girard. And he seems the sort to not be above spilling a little infant blood to do it.

😯 

On 7/28/2020 at 10:08 AM, Jextella said:

My only non-logical thought is that Baggerly Sr. is too obvious, but that's neither here nor there, really.

I hadn’t thought of Baggerly or that motive, @Chicago Redshirt, but it’s possible, especially if he knew/believed the baby was not his descendant. 

[Jextella]

So  I just binged the entire season thus far.  I picked up a lot I missed the first time, but I was mostly interested in the sewing of the eyes and whether there might be some wierd meaning to it.  I don't think there is.  As creepy as it is, it was only done to make the baby look alive - which makes sense given the distrance between Emily and Mathew and the trolley when they look at the baby.

Ennis said to his partner that he was hired to "do a thing" which I think might be safe to assume was coordinating the kidnapping on behalf of whoever hired him. 

I feel whoever hired Ennis did so to get George (and possibly Emily) enough money to leave town OR to make a public show of the crime in order to drive public perception in a desired direction.

I'm not ruling out Church involvement.  Sister Alice's first sermon is all about how sins of the flesh destroy the soul - or something like that, and she seems to have family issues of her own.

I'm also not ruling out involvement by Matthew.  This could have been a convenient way for him to seek revenge on his wife and father.

Edited July 30, 2020 by Jextella

[LoveLeigh]

I think Sister's mother is behind it all. Maybe she is Baggerly's lover. 

[paigow]

1 minute ago, DakotaLavender said:

I think Sister's mother is behind it all. Maybe she is Baggerly's lover. 

No motive. If she wanted money from Baggerly, he would give it to her off the books. If this was blackmail / revenge there are too many conspirators for her to share with. 

[shapeshifter]

48 minutes ago, paigow said:

55 minutes ago, DakotaLavender said:

I think Sister's mother is behind it all. Maybe she is Baggerly's lover. 

No motive. If she wanted money from Baggerly, he would give it to her off the books. If this was blackmail / revenge there are too many conspirators for her to share with.

True. But, now that y'all mention it, we did get a close up of those packed bags. Sister's mother (Birdy) would probably be skillful at getting all the church gossip, genealogies, and searching the finances since she and her daughter have a history of going from place to place --congregation to congregation-- to support their relatively independent lifestyle, such as it is. It would be quite a twist if Birdy had orchestrated the kidnapping, in which case I'm sure the death was not part of her plan --but either Baggerly or Matthew Dodson might have decided to kill the child once his questionable paternal parentage was discovered. 

[meep.meep]

I keep thinking about Sister being convinced that she can resurrect the baby.  Easiest way to do that is if the dead baby wasn't Charlie.  Who identified the body?

[LoveLeigh]

1 hour ago, meep.meep said:

I keep thinking about Sister being convinced that she can resurrect the baby.  Easiest way to do that is if the dead baby wasn't Charlie.  Who identified the body?

Wouldn't Emily, on that bus, know her own baby? 

[shapeshifter]

1 hour ago, meep.meep said:

I keep thinking about Sister being convinced that she can resurrect the baby.  Easiest way to do that is if the dead baby wasn't Charlie.  Who identified the body?

So Sister Alice was in on it?

 

6 minutes ago, DakotaLavender said:

Wouldn't Emily, on that bus, know her own baby? 

Yeah, well, with the eyes stitched open and the baby dead, she might have had some sort of variation on hysterical blindness?

[LoveLeigh]

2 hours ago, shapeshifter said:

So Sister Alice was in on it?

Maybe Sister is in on this aspect of it: they switched the babies so she could "resurrect" Charlie. If she is a charlatan, she has a master plan to put that plan and all the trimmings into effect... like befriending Emily so it takes the spotlight off her as being an accomplice. I do think th emother is in some way involved. Otherwise that whole side backstory makes no sense. 

Who knows.  

[BradandJanet]

Alice is putting on a pretty good act, if it is an act. If she has the real Charlie, where did she get a dead baby Charlie's age and size? It's possible but a little pat for a good plot.  

[shapeshifter]

5 hours ago, BradandJanet said:

Alice is putting on a pretty good act, if it is an act. If she has the real Charlie, where did she get a dead baby Charlie's age and size? It's possible but a little pat for a good plot.  

If this was a daytime soap opera, Charlie would turn out to have been a twin, of which Emily was never aware —having been drugged during childbirth, explicitly to conceal from her the second child, which was then sold to cover Matthew Dodson’s gambling debts at that time. 

[Jextella]

Perry says several times that the death of Charlie was the result of a kidnapping gone wrong. But, if Charlie wasn't supposed to die, then why did he?

One of the kidnapping goons referred to George as baby killer.  He must have been involved for some reason - maybe he was hoping he'd get enough money for him and Emily to leave but he didn't want to take the baby.  

Perhaps Emily didn't want the baby either. I don't think Emily killed the baby, but I'm not convinced she's an innocent party to the kidnapping.

[tljgator]

I'm worried that I think the Mom (and maybe Sister) are in on it because my thoughts on them are clouded by having just watched Penny Dreadful: City of Angels, which featured the same characters. If I'd have known in advance of starting that -- just before this began -- that some of the same characters would be featured, I'd have delayed that, I think. Ah well, I guess it'll be interesting to see if this turns out differently or not.

[bosawks]

I’m going to go Herman Baggerly raped his son’s wife, Emily, I and is the father.

Arranged the kidnapping as a means to get the child and was double crossed and it turned into an actual botched kidnapping.

Let’s go super dark.....

[paigow]

1 hour ago, bosawks said:

I’m going to go Herman Baggerly raped his son’s wife, Emily, I and is the father.

It would be easier paying Ennis to kill Matthew & Emily and adopt the baby. Perry will quit if Emily casually drops a "BTW, old Baggerly raped me in between fuckfests with George"

[shapeshifter]

From the Chapter 6 thread:

31 minutes ago, Cardie said:

I’ve only just now firmed up my speculation about what’s going on, so excuse me for jumping in late.

Baggerly, Hicks, Seidel, and Gannon have over many years bought up apparently worthless property in the town of Girard, laundering money through the church recently. When the Heavenly City or whatever gets the go-ahead, the land becomes valuable. Although I haven’t worked out all the details, I think the ransom is being laundered to be paid by Baggerly for the land, land he and his buddies already own through shell companies. The kidnapping wasn’t supposed to hurt anyone, just provide a pretext for the ransom to be gathered and disappeared. Baggerly involved himself in the Dotsons’ lives to set up the kidnapping of Charlie. 

But while they were holding Charlie, he was smothered, not part of the plan. I think Sister Alice is somehow responsible and her more bizarre pronouncements stem from guilt. 

Are you saying that Matthew Dodson is not really Baggerly’s illegitimate son? Interesting. Maybe Baggerly needed an heir for some reason related to power in the church. 

Baby Charlie might have been smothered with a pillow to quiet him to prevent discovery.

Maybe Sister Alice or Mother Birdy stumbled upon the kidnapping and were paid to keep quiet, being promised Charlie would not be harmed, but then he died or was killed.  

[Cardie]

I don’t think it makes any difference plot wise whether or not Baggerly is Matthew’s father. He makes a good patsy either way. 
Alice I think lost a child in the past, stumbled upon Charlie and wanted to keep him. She ends up accidentally killing him  

 

[paigow]

Sister and Mother have horrible poker faces. If one or both killed Charlie, there would have been a confession already,

[shapeshifter]

5 hours ago, paigow said:

Sister and Mother have horrible poker faces. If one or both killed Charlie, there would have been a confession already,

Meh, Mother always looks guilty to me, and Sister is in so much denial so much of the time that she might not know she is guilty if she is. 

[Cardie]

Featuring Alice to this extent only as the shill for the embezzlement scheme doesn’t make sense to me. She has to have a more direct link to Charlie’s death. 

[AnimeMania]

I just think that Sister Alice is going to be Perry Mason's patron so that he can get his law firm up and running. I also think they are trying to lock her in as a recurring character for next season.

[shapeshifter]

Just now, AnimeMania said:

I just think that Sister Alice is going to be Perry Mason's patron so that he can get his law firm up and running. I also think they are trying to lock her in as a recurring character for next season.

I love Tatiana Maslany, but I think it would be a mistake to bring back her character —much like bringing back Damian Lewis (Brody) was in season 2 Homeland. 
I’d prefer having Maslany return as an entirely new character. 

[Chicago Redshirt]

So going into the last chapter of S. 1, there has to be more to the mystery, right? It can't just be that Ennis is the last one standing of a conspiracy between him, Elder Seidel, George Gannon and the two Milwaukee guys?

[BlazingBloomers]

I watched the first episode and couldn’t bring myself to watch more but I have read recaps from several sites and all the episode threads here. My theory for how it ends is that Perry gets Alice on the stand and she loses it. Maybe he asks her about mothers and if she thinks Emily was a good mother. The floodgates open about Birdy and the things she’s put Alice through. Birdy then loses it in response and we get an “after everything I’ve done for you” confession. 

[Jextella]

I was poking around other sites and there are some really good theories out there.  Someone pointed out something super obvious .... how did Birdie know to prearrange another baby after the non-resurrection of baby Charlie?  This must mean she knew the casket would be empty. Another theory says that Baby Charlie is still alive and yet another states that Sister Alice is of some sort of mixed ethnicity and was perhaps adopted - or the love child of Elder Baggerly.  

There are some oddball questions I'm wondering about regarding Alice and Birdie:

• How did Birdie manage to squirrel away so much money unnoticed given that the church was in such financial dire straights and that someone else did the bookkeeping? 
• Sister Alice's health/seizures - is there more to it?  It seemed so random.
• It seemed that when the mother sent Alice to the man who gave them gas to say thank you, she went as if she knew what to do and that this wasn't the first time. 
• I'm confused about the ransom money.  Who provided it - was it the church or Baggerly senior on is own?  Did the provider get it back?  I wonder if the ransom money is the same money in Birdie's suitcases.

I stink at sleuthing these kinds of shows but I am leaning toward the idea that Birdie is not Alice's biological mother and that Birdie arranged to care for Alice at a young age as a means of extorting money from Alice's biological parent(s), and then quickly started using her in other ways to make a buck.  Alice is and always has been Birdie's meal ticket.  The only reason to go to the great length of moving to the US would be to further exploit Alice.

Edited August 5, 2020 by Jextella

[paigow]

10 hours ago, Jextella said:

I think/hope there is some connection between Sister Alice/mother and the kidnapping.  They've been more prominent characters than the corrupt church guys. It would be odd if they were just there for back-drop.

Ennis has killed everyone else involved in the conspiracy. If Mother/ Sister were involved, they would be dead.

Holcomb will manufacture some evidence against Ennis that also exonerates Emily, then kill him and present the evidence to Mason; thereby becoming the hero that L.A. deserves, but not the one it needs right now....

Edited August 5, 2020 by paigow

[Chicago Redshirt]

On 8/4/2020 at 11:43 PM, paigow said:

Ennis has killed everyone else involved in the conspiracy. If Mother/ Sister were involved, they would be dead.

Holcomb will manufacture some evidence against Ennis that also exonerates Emily, then kill him and present the evidence to Mason; thereby becoming the hero that L.A. deserves, but not the one it needs right now....

Well, it is possible that Ennis did not know that anyone else is involved in the conspiracy (his only contact with the church could be Elder Seidel, but Seidel could have involved other church people or be the puppet for someone else), or that he knows other people are involved but hasn't yet made time to get to them.

There is a Sgt. Holcomb who is in Raymond Burr Perry Mason and (from second-hand knowledge) in the books. So I am speculating that whatever happens, Holcomb will survive with his rep intact.