JH gives his alibi before stating what happened to his "fiance". I know she committed suicide, I believe she committed suicide, but the sequence of telling dispatch what happened is what we usually see as suspect.
I found that interesting, but the only alibi-stating is that he just got home and found her. And that would only be alibi-stating if it was a lie, which we have no reason to believe that it is a lie.
That he feels the need to build up to the pertinent part is interesting, but I think that might have to do with the nature of the injuries. What he has done in the last three weeks is not alibi-creation. It gives us a sense of alibi-creation, I think in part because we've been sitting in here asking where he's been sleeping since she got out of jail, and the first thing he does on the 911 call is answer that exact question. So I think we're flagging it for a biased reason. Alibi-creation in this call would be to tell us where he's been in the preceding few hours and what he was doing, but he hasn't done that. I don't know if he could have done that, because I haven't listened to enough 911 calls, but he hasn't done that, and we know it was suicide, so he didn't need to do that...and he hasn't.
I think he's actually building up to the part that's very hard to say, and he's releasing the thoughts that are flowing fast through his head, possibly as a protection-mechanism to avoid saying the thing he needs to tell the dispatcher?
If this call had been released before the autopsy report stating 'suicide' a lot of us would have been flagging items like this as potential 'guilt' indicators...we would have been wrong. In that sense I think this call is an important learning tool for us to dissect and understand why we would have given faulty flags on certain sections of that call.
Another thing, which I think is why that issue of meandering and building up to the main point is an important flag in many cases, is that EG is clearly not in a life/death situation. He knows she's beyond help so there's no need for "get an ambulance here immediately to try and save her life". I believe part of the reason the guilty can spare time to alibi-build before stating the immediate problem is that they also know the person isn't in immediate danger and it doesn't really matter how long it takes for LE to arrive. So JH's call can be interpreted as "he knows she's beyond help" and in the case of the guilty making a call to report someone missing, if they do this same build up it's considered indicative that they also know the person is beyond help. So for JH it's not a sign of guilt, but if that was a call to report a missing person then, yes, it should be flagged for that reason that the person making the call seems to be missing life/death concern for the person they're calling in about.