Okay, I've had a spare minute (several actually, given that my tutorial ended on time for the first time ever, instead of running quite far over my half-hour limit) and here is my thought:
Let's inspect each living player, Encai, Underhill, Esty, and myself.
I know that we've already gone over each other (except for Boromir not analyzing me), but let's do it from a biased point of view. With the thought "Let's just say _____ is a wolf. What has s/he said and done that would prove my point?"
No writing from personal opinion such as "I think s/he is innocent, but _____". I think it would be a good idea to write an arguement, sophistic though it may be, against everybody, with the only intentional bias being "So-and-so is obviously guilty because ______". That way we can look as objectively as possible at what possibly damns the person. And I know that we can all write well, so no claiming that you can't write a good arguement.
Good idea? I rather think so... Here's how it would work (in trusty alphebetical order):
Encai accuses Esty accuses Fea accuses Mister Underhill accuses Encai. That way everybody gets a good thorough looking into, actively searching for every possible negativity. Theoretically, once the four of us have been "proved" to be lupine, we'll look and decide on the two most convincing arguements (not based on quality of writing, though that's always nice, but based on the arguements themselves). Don't forget that you're allowed to conjecture a bit, such as saying "Esty is obviously a wolf because even though she didn't do anything, that's exactly what a quiet wolf would be doing: looking innocent."
Even if everybody else thinks my plan is a waste of time, I plan to implement it anyhow, with or without group consent. I'll search for Underhill's guilt when I get back from my [wenching] duties mid-afternoon.