A big part of investigating a crime is to study the narrative you are given, by suspects, witnesses, victims, etc, and seek out "tells" that either confirm or refute this version of events. What you look for are details that appear inconsistent or contrary to what you would have expected. These anomalies do not necessarily mean that the story you were given was wrong, but they definitively require further consideration. In this case, two of these things stand out.
You do not expect a family with a SAHM and a husband with a job that pays, a best, an average salary for the community, to put 2 children in Day Care. This is very much the exception. There are perfectly reasonable explanations. Obviously, along with the many possible explanations that would appear to have no barring on Sharri's disappearance is the possibility that she was having some difficulties dealing with the day to day stresses of motherhood. We can not infer such a thing, and even if it were the case it would not exclude the possibility of abduction, but it would be some very important information.
Another significant inconsistency it the husband's story that Sherri texted him at 10:30 to see if he was coming home for lunch and he did not reply until 1:30. His explanation was that she knew he seldom had his phone with him when he was on the job so she really didn't expect a reply. This really seems a bit hinkey. Why ask if she didn't expect a reply and why wait until it was pretty obvious that he wasn't coming for lunch to tell her he wasn't. There are perfectly innocuous explanations but I can think of a few that are not. The husband is going to have to be checked out.
