Please note the use of the pronoun "I" in his statement about not knowing where she is. (below)
"She's my best friend. she's um, you know she's,just she's, this is something she just doesn't do.
She was with her, a group of her friends there and then the last person to see her got into a cab and she was going to walk home, and and she hasn't been seen since. "
"I have a feeling that something somebody did something to her,or she's um, you know a I just don't know where she is, I'd love to just know where she is or what happened."
I had trouble making out what he said but if this above is accurate, he says he does not know where she is. He does not say he doesn't know what happened, only that he'd love to know what happened.
Other than the word "just", he uses the first person singular, "I" to connect to not knowing where she is. This is strong.
This is my concern about the reporting: Was it a direct question he responded to, or was this him speaking on his own? Would he have a need to even say that he doesn't know where she is? Or, was it a question posed, even conversationally? The journalism covering this case has been poor.
Then, he begins to say that something happened to her, or someone did something to her and he would "just love to know..." If he believed something bad happened, why would he just "love" to know?
Thank you to those who corrected the transcript.
In prior analysis, he showed sensitivity indicators about their relationship. Here he tells us he "just does not know where she is". These must be viewed together. Sadly, I wonder about their relationship and if, perhaps, he did not want her out at this hour with her co-workers, perhaps one in particular. "She's my best friend" may indicate regret especially when taken in context, and with his lack of using her name. He does not tell us what it is she doesn't do (not come home), but thus far, we are hearing of a troubled relationship.
The quote as to their relationship that shows sensitivity:
Um. No, well, I mean her her dad’s not well. Um but other than that she was, she was rea-she’s really happy here, she’s really happy in Melbourne. We were just discussing that, that the day before she left – or she left or whatever happened. Um, so we were just discussing you know how happy we were here and you know I spoke to her before I left for work and she was in great spirits. Everyone who was there that night said she was in really good spirits so um I don’t know I don’t know."
A husband speaks of his wife's happiness in the past tense is indicative of a very bad marriage headed for divorce. Because his wife is missing, the past tense reference has an added concern.
Note that "happy" is sensitive, with "really" and via repetition.
The number of "lefts" is very sensitive and concerning. Was she planning on leaving him? Is this why she was out so late drinking? Is this why he attempted to call her at 2AM?
His use of the word "we" shows he considered them to be a couple. Did she consider their relationship in the same way?
If he issues a reliable denial, we won't further the issue about the relationship, similar to the Kyron Horman case.