Stanley Elliott trial: Experts give evidence on 999 call

As previously reported, Michelle Hibbert called the emergency services from her South Ham home in the early hours of June 20, 2021, after she and her husband, Geoffrey Hibbert, were stabbed multiple times.

The couple were found dead by police in the bungalow on Buckland Avenue, with their toddler son sleeping in a nearby room.

They had been out for the evening in Reading and had left “trusted friend” Stanley Elliott at the property to babysit. He was later arrested at his home on Kiln Road, Sherborne St John. 

READ MORE: Alleged murderer and victim co-accused in bingo burglary

In the trial of Elliott at Winchester Crown Court on Tuesday (February 22), voice recognition experts were called to give evidence on the 999 call made by Mrs Hibbert.

Frederika Holmes was asked by the prosecution to analyse the call and give evidence on her findings, while Allen Hirson was instructed to do the same for the defence.

Focusing on the section of the call after Mrs Hibbert can be heard to scream, and it is suggested that somebody had entered the room she was in. Ms Holmes said that she can only say that she heard “one or more male voices”, adding: “If somebody said how many voices can be heard, I would not want to reach a conclusion on that.”

Chris Henley QC, defending, asked her if there were sounds “where it is plausible that one male gives instructions to another male”, to which she replied: “It makes sense as an interpretation, it is plausible as an interpretation”.

She added: “I have suggested that some sounds can plausibly be interpreted as exchange between two people, but I think conversation is pushing it because that implies a coherence that’s not available in this audio quality.”

SEE ALSO: 999 call from dying mother ‘one of the most harrowing’

At two points in the audio, the two experts agreed that more than one “vocalisation” can be heard at the same time. However, while Ms Holmes said that she cannot be sure whether it is necessarily two voices, Mr Hirson was much more certain.

He said: “Initially I attributed it to a single speaker. On further reflection, I decided it was two.”

He continued: “I do not believe it is one speaker, I believe it is two independent male individuals produced at the same time. You could produce a sound of exertion and speech at the same time, but I do not believe that is the phenomenon I am hearing here.”

Sarah Jones, prosecuting, said: “The process in which you went from believing there was one [voice], to potentially believing two. Can that happen in reverse?”

To which Mr Hirson responded: “One can always change one’s mind, but it is very difficult to unhear something once you have heard it.

“I hear two speakers making sounds at the same time. Can I go back and hear one speaker? No, I can’t.”

Ms Jones continued: “If we work on the proposition of two potential male speakers, there is nothing in the recording to suggest a third male voice?” Mr Hirson agreed there wasn’t.

She then asked him whether it was plausible that the two voices could be that of a suspect and victim, to which he said: “I cannot exclude that possibility. I am referring to some degree of extremis for some person, so there would be an overlapping possibility that there could be somebody under duress.”

She added: “You do absolutely agree that the female voice, when asked ‘who had done this to you’, the undeniable answer is Stan Elliott.”

Mr Hirson said: “I do, yes”.

Ms Holmes agreed that her transcript of the recording was arguably “more cautious” than Mr Hirson’s, who could make out several phrases that she could not, including the words “stand up”.

When questioned by Ms Jones over why he could hear it but Ms Holmes, with the same equipment, could not, Mr Hirson responded: “Sometimes material which is completely indistinct can flit into focus, and I would put it down to good fortune”.

He added that he particularly noted a rhotacisation - a particular way of pronouncing the letter ‘r’ after a vowel - in the word “water” spoken in the recording. It stood out to him as being an accent feature of parts of Scotland, Ireland and south-west England.

When asked if he heard a similar accent “lilt” elsewhere in the recording, he answered “no”.

When Mr Henley asked Ms Holmes if she too could hear the word water and the accent feature, she responded: “It took a few goes, but [yes].”

Ms Holmes agreed that the accent was “not consistent” with RP English or Geordie and featured a roticised vowel.

Elliott, 53, denies two counts of murder.

The trial continues.

Message from the editor 

Thank you for reading this story. We really appreciate your support. 

Please help us to continue bringing you all the trusted news from Basingstoke by sharing this story or by following our Facebook page. 

Kimberley Barber

Editor