Return to Transcripts main page
Live From...
Hearing for Duke Rape Case; FBI Searches Farm Near Detroit
Aired May 18, 2006 - 14:30 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
KYRA PHILLIPS, CNN ANCHOR: Once again, live pictures out of Durham. We're trying -- or we're following, rather -- we're waiting the court proceedings to start. You're looking at a live picture of Reade Seligmann. He's one of the accused lacrosse players in that rape investigation.
As soon as the lawyers -- OK, I'm told we've got Jeffrey Toobin, our legal analyst, on the line right now. Jeffrey -- oh, he's live. Great. We've got you in New York. Jeffrey, good to see you.
JEFFREY TOOBIN, CNN SR. LEGAL ANALYST: Hi, Kyra.
PHILLIPS: As we wait for this to begin, a couple things that we learned today. Seligmann's lawyers wanting to see the cell phone records of the victim. You know, there's been a lot of talk from the very beginning that she was making calls and possibly spending time with other individuals before coming to that party. Possibly something might have happened at that time and not in that house where those lacrosse players are.
TOOBIN: Right. What this initial appearance is basically a chance for the defense to start to get access to the evidence in the case. And they're going to want everything that the prosecution has. So that's going to be any records of tests, DNA tests. It's going to be cell phone records, ATM transactions, you know, taxi driver receipts, anything that can lock in a timeline one way or another, in part. And also the scientific evidence, DNA tests and the like, that will show both sides what they're dealing with and how to plan to argue their case.
PHILLIPS: Could we hear from Reade or no? Is this just the lawyers' time?
TOOBIN: I would be shocked. I would be shocked if the defendant said anything. This is almost entirely from the -- for the lawyers, since this is a first appearance, there might be a formal entry of a plea, so you might hear him say, not guilty. But substantively, I'm sure he won't say anything.
PHILLIPS: Now we have heard -- I guess for the first time we finally heard from one of the lacrosse players on the team. That was, what was that, within the past couple of days, right?
TOOBIN: Right. It was the captain, who was the third and last person charged in the attack.
PHILLIPS: Do you think that -- well, definitely makes a statement, but does that help in a situation like this?
TOOBIN: You know, I think, given that it is likely to be months and until the trial takes place, any effect it has, positive or negative, will be long dissipated. I think it doesn't have much of an impact. Probably makes him feel better, probably makes some of his colleagues and friends feel better. But in terms of, you know, the -- whether he gets ultimately convicted or acquitted, I don't think it has much impact one way or another.
PHILLIPS: So what could happen to this young man?
TOOBIN: Decades in prison. This is a very serious crime. This is -- short of murder, aggravated rape is one of most serious crimes you can be charged with. And we're not talking about one year, we're not talking about five years or ten years. It can be long, long prison sentences for this kind of crime.
PHILLIPS: All right, let's listen to what the judge has to say, Jeffrey.
JUDGE RONALD STEPHENS, DURHAM CO., N.C. SUPERIOR COURT: Gentlemen, remove your hats.
(INAUDIBLE), come in and sit down.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: (INAUDIBLE)
STEPHENS: OK, once we start, nobody's going to be able to get up and leave, so you need to sit down if you're going to stay. All right, we have a full court room, so there will be no comings and goings once we begin this proceeding.
I'm not sure why everybody is here. But let me just tell you, this is a court of law, and this is my court. This is an administrative court of law. Generally we do administrative matters and procedural matters here, and that's what we're going to be doing today. So if anybody thought that this was going to be a public forum in which somebody could stand and speak, that is not going to be allowed. Anybody who decides to do that will be head in contempt of this court, and I will put you in jail. Everybody needs to understand that.
The lawyers will be talking, I will be talking, but nobody else will be talking. So if anybody is disruptive or decides to that, summarily, you will be held in contempt of this court, and I will put you in jail. All right, so we understand the rules now. If anybody doesn't understand those or decides that those are not rules they can comply with, you can get up and leave, and then you won't put yourself in a position in which that can happen. So if you stay, you have to abide by my rules.
All right. Mr. D.A., what's your case?
MICHAEL NIFONG, DURHAM, N.C. DISTRICT ATTORNEY: First matter for the court this afternoon is the first appearance of Reade William Seligmann, file numbers 06CRS4334 through 4336. We don't normally bring in the files for first appearance. Because we're getting motions filed, I will hand that to the court at this time.
STEPHENS: All right, thank you, sir. All right.
And Mr. Osborn, you made an appearance last time, waived his appearance to the first appearance. And I told you when he came back on his first appearance, we need him to sign a waiver of court- appointed counsel.
KIRK OSBORN, SELIGMANN'S ATTORNEY: Actually, your honor, I've already -- excuse me -- filed a waiver with the court.
STEPHENS: OK.
OSBORN: I did that the same week that you asked me to have that done.
STEPHENS: All right. Fine. Was that sworn, too?
OSBORN: It was sworn before a notary.
STEPHENS: That's fine. That's fine. All right.
All right. Well, obviously, we're here today for is the first setting. And we're here to determine counsel, which has been determined. And we're also here to determine issues involving discovery, whether or not there's a voluntary request for discovery. And I take it that there has been?
OSBORN: There has, your honor. And actually, there's a notice of hearing as to some particular matters we'd like to get heard today. They're very brief. But they are necessary in order to prevent the spoilization of evidence.
STEPHENS: Right. Well, I understand your notice of hearing. But I'll determine what's heard today. Obviously, you understand that. At least you notified the D.A. in that manner so he would be prepared at least if the court agreed with you to hear the matters. All right? But I take it there at least has been a voluntary request for -- request for voluntary discovery. I'm assuming that, Mr. D.A., have you been able to at least comply with that?
NIFONG: Your honor today, we provided 1,278 consecutive numbered pages of documentary evidence, two VHS tapes and one CD-ROM containing photographs. Mr. Osborn has received those and signed a receipt for those.
STEPHENS: All right. I'll assume you haven't had a chance to look at that.
OSBORN: I have not, your honor.
STEPHENS: All right. I'll hear you, then, on -- have you at least had a chance to look at his request? As far as his notice, whatever his notice....
NIFONG: I have, your honor. OSBORN: On May 2nd, I delivered to Mr. Nifong a proposed order regarding the seized cellular telephone that is property of the complainant in this case. It's important to get experts access to that phone immediately, and hopefully the phone has not been tampered with. But if we don't get an expert to it who knows what he's doing, the evidence in that phone can be lost. And it's important to do it immediately.
There's an affidavit from our expert attached to our motion setting forth why it is necessary to get to that phone. We certainly would be willing to have our expert and an expert from the state meet and do that together or --- but anyway, it needs to be done. The phone needs to be charged. We need to get the phone number, we need to find the service provider.
And all of the other information is in the phone itself. And that was carried by the complainant that night. It was canceled, the service provider was canceled the next day. So we need to get the number, if we can get access to the call detail sheets of the service provider. And that would enable us to see who she was talking with that day.
STEPHENS: Right. This is the same information that you, by letter, at least, notified me that you intended do?
OSBORN: Yes, sir. It was on May 2nd. And I delivered a copy with a proposed order to Mr. Nifong.
STEPHENS: Let me talk. That's fine. Let me ask -- Mr. Nifong, I mean, I'm assuming this phone you're talking about was the one seized in the search warrant?
NIFONG: Yes.
STEPHENS: And seized at the residence?
NIFONG: Yes. Found outside by the boys, and they gave it to the...
OSBORN: Well, objection to that.
STEPHENS: Well, wait a minute. I'm going to let you both talk.
NIFONG: It was -- it was found outside the next day by the boys. They brought it inside. And the cops showed up with a search warrant. They said, look, we found this outside. Her purse as well. And then, of course, led them to, you know, fingernails they'd thrown in the trash can.
STEPHENS: All right. So this -- it's in the custody of the police department?
OSBORN: Yes. The way I understand it.
STEPHENS: OK, since it's in the custody of the police department, and so it's a matter of evidence for the state? OSBORN: Your honor, I understand that it was seized. I assumed that it's still in the custody of the police department. But the lead investigator in the department is not available today. And I haven't been able to speak to him, so -- but I'm assuming that it is.
STEPHENS: Well, I'm assuming that it's at least an item of evidence that at least now is in their custody and a matter that would be perhaps evidence for you during the course of the trial.
OSBORN: Yes, sir. It would be evidence not with respect to anything contained therein but, obviously, it confirms some of the testimony you're going to receive about what items were left behind and the circumstances.
STEPHENS: Well, again I just want to maintain the integrity and the security of whatever item or exhibit that you might have that you contend if it were turned over to somebody else that you would lose the integrity and security of it. So if there is a proposed order, if you all want to talk about an order
OSBORN: I have a proposed order. We're not asking, Your Honor, to have the phone turned over to us.
STEPHENS: Right.
OSBORN: We're asking that we have our expert go to the phone and do whatever is necessary to charge it and get the data and information off of it with the supervision of the state's expert, if necessary.
STEPHENS: OK. All right. Do you know whether or not that has actually been done?
NIFONG: I don't believe that it has.
STEPHENS: OK.
NIFONG: I would wonder what evidence he thinks that he's entitled to would be on that telephone.
STEPHENS: Well, frankly, if you have your folks do that, and the court can truly review that in camera, then I can determine whether or not there may be something there that may or may not be otherwise discoverable.
NIFONG: Mr. Osborn seemed to think that we could not do this in such a way that it would protect the integrity of the telephone's contents. And that seems to be why he filed this motion.
STEPHENS: Well, frankly ...
OSBORN: Why wouldn't we be entitled, Your Honor, to find out if she were calling people from the house? Why wouldn't we be entitled to that? Why wouldn't we be able to know last 10 calls that she made? And the important thing is -- and I've been through this, Your Honor.
If it is not done properly and if it not done now, the battery loses its charge and when the battery loses its charge, the data in the phone itself disappears. And so -- and if it's started up without being charged, if there's -- if it's not handed properly ...
STEPHENS: I hear you.
OSBORN: You could lose the information.
STEPHENS: I understand your position on that. I here you and I understand your position on it. Mr. D.A., I mean, it appears to me that least that's the information that at least needs to be produced and the court is going to order it to be produced.
OSBORN: I have a proposed order if you'd like to ...
STEPHENS: Now, I understand that. He's got it. Right now it's part of his evidence. So, frankly, I will look at your order in a minute, but I want to make sure that whatever's done with something that's in his custody, his evidence, is he satisfied with the security of it and how it's going to be handled? I need to hear you on that, Mr. D.A.
How are you -- surely, would prefer or -- or I'm subject to whatever you'd like do as far as your people being able to then obtain whatever information you want to, and however you want to do it, whether or not it's in conjunction with the defendant's counsel.
NIFONG: Well, Your Honor we have our own, dare I use the term, expert, at the police department who is reviewing the cell phones that were seized, computer disks and things of that nature. And he has not processed this yet, to my knowledge.
STEPHENS: Well, it's my understanding that this may be a phone that actually was a third party's phone or could -- or was it -- do you know whether or not it was her cell phone or ...
NIFONG: I do not know right off hand.
STEPHENS: So we may have third, or fourth parties who have some privacy interest in this themselves.
NIFONG: Conceivably.
STEPHENS: Whatever comes from this, the court would like to review that in chambers to make sure that, frankly, something that should not -- has no reason to be made public unless there's some need for it or some legitimate reason for it to protect the interests, privacy interests of others who are not involved in this.
So, I'm going to order that it -- that the phone be examined and that the information off of it be obtained off of it. I'm going to let you two talk about how that will be done, that is, if you can talk. I'm going to let you two talk about how that can be done.
If you can't either talk or come up with some way that that can be done together, then you can both submit to me proposed orders. I'll review the proposed orders and either accept one or the other or I'll do my own order. But the information that comes thereafter will be for my review in camera. And I know that that means that your folks will see it before I get it.
NIFONG: Yes.
STEPHENS: But they'll be -- I want a protective order in regards to that information that would protect the contents of it, as far as being released in any way other than to the court.
OSBORN: Would you permit our expert to be there and -- once the data's obtained? Because it's very -- you need to, you know, handle this cell phone very carefully or it will be lost.
STEPHENS: Again, you can present your proposed orders to how that will be done to me.
OSBORN: All right. OK.
STEPHENS: My concern is that I want to make sure nobody acts on that information ...
OSBORN: Yes, sir.
STEPHENS: ... or does anything with that information until I review it.
OSBORN: Yes, sir.
STEPHENS: Obviously, your side and his side will have the information depending upon what order I sign.
OSBORN: Yes, sir.
STEPHENS: OK.
OSBORN: You want to take a look?
STEPHENS: And get that to me as soon as you can.
OSBORN: You want to take a look at this proposed order.
STEPHENS: I believe -- didn't you leave me a copy with it?
OSBORN: Well, I've just changed it briefly because I wanted to make sure that ...
STEPHENS: Well, I'll let you -- I'll look at it, but I'm going to look at the one you want me to consider, based upon what we have said here today.
OSBORN: Well, that's why I gave Mr. Nifong one on May 27nd, hopefully that he'd reviewed it and perhaps he had suggestions or something, but ...
STEPHENS: Right, but based on my comments today, I want to make sure that you, again, there's a -- it includes protective order for ...
OSBORN: It does.
STEPHENS: ... the court's in camera review.
OSBORN: No, it does not do that.
STEPHENS: OK. I mean, I'd like all of that to be in there.
OSBORN: OK.
STEPHENS: All right. Yes, sir? Anything else?
OSBORN: Yes, sir.
STEPHENS: OK.
OSBORN: There's a motion for complete recordation of the proceedings.
STEPHENS: Of?
OSBORN: Of this case.
STEPHENS: This is not a trial right now. We're still in the criminal admin setting in which, frankly, there are a lot of things that sometimes are done fairly informally.
OSBORN: Yes, sir.
STEPHENS: Sometimes I may even invite you to approach the bench and talk with you up here.
OSBORN: Yes.
STEPHENS: Frankly -- and we do that all the time every day and we don't record that and we don't record admin proceedings generally. Anything of substance that is done during the course of this trial that you want recorded, I'll allow your -- you to then request that be recorded. But are you telling me that you want everything said during all administrative proceedings recorded?
OSBORN: If it's a matter of substance. And I -- we're not asking that bench conferences be recorded unless it's something of substance and we can summarize what has been said at the bench. But, for instance, what's going on here today we'd like to have recorded.
STEPHENS: All right. Well, it's being recorded. I'm going to allow your motion to record everything because apparently we're going to need everything recorded in this matter.
OSBORN: Yes, sir. Are you prepared to hear a bond reduction motion?
STEPHENS: No, sir.
OSBORN: Could we get a date for it?
STEPHENS: Well, your client's out on bond.
OSBORN: Yes, but he's out on bond on, you know, money that's borrowed from the family. And, you know, we have submitted, you know, what we think is a pretty clear alibi defense that's, you know, air- tight. And we have a box of material from, you know, senators, congressmen, friends, you know, that say that he's not a flight risk. And we think that $400,000 is ...
STEPHENS: $400,000 is within the guidelines for the nature of this charge. And that's -- this court set that bond. Is it right, frankly, in the guidelines. That's what the bond would generally be, initially. I'm not going to hear your bond -- since he's out on bond, not going to hear your bond request today. You can submit -- is that in the file?
OSBORN: Yes.
STEPHENS: I'll review it in the file and tell you when ...
OSBORN: We'd be glad to, you know, submit letters and whatever you'd like.
STEPHENS: I'll review it. And at the next setting we'll hear you on it.
OSBORN: All right. Your Honor, there is a motion to preserve all the notes, handwritten notes, memoranda, data compilations, everything that's been generated by the law enforcement officers in this case. We would like to have all of that preserved. Nothing is destroyed. And let me tell you the reason for that.
STEPHENS: Well you don't have to tell me the reason for it. I'm just trying to think about the logistics of, frankly what you may think is something that need to be preserved and someone else may think is something that needed to be preserved. I don't know whether somebody's jotting something down on the back of a cardboard box or whatever. Are you talking about officers in general or just their notes?
OSBORN: Yes.
STEPHENS: That they keep in the line of their investigative process?
OSBORN: Yes.
STEPHENS: All right. I'm going to allow that, Mr. D.A. That's not unreasonable that they maintain and preserve the notes that once they make a dictation of whatever they're using the notes for, they need to maintain the notes.
OSBORN: And then, your honor, I understand that it is custom at least in this county that we would be permitted to actually go over to the law enforcement officer's agency and actually go through their files, all their files, all their notes and so forth, personally.
STEPHENS: Well I'm not aware of that custom. I believe perhaps maybe that's your take on the custom. I'm not aware of that custom. I mean you surely have the discovery process and you have what you're allowed by statute and then, frankly, whatever else the D.A. allows is his call.
OSBORN: Yes, sir.
STEPHENS: And so whatever he otherwise allows, voluntarily is his call. If you find something that you think that you need and that he's not allowing, then again, this court is the place to come to ask for that. No, sir, I'm not going to sign an order allowing you to go over and rummage through the law enforcement officer's files.
OSBORN: Would you sign an order requiring the law enforcement officers to turn over all of their notes, memoranda, reports, documents, data compilations, tape recordings and so forth to the district attorney?
STEPHENS: No, sir. I'll allow him to proceed as he normally does in the compilation of his information. And if thereafter for some reason you believe that you have not received everything, then we'll address that with the court order. Right now I'm not going to order things that I believe will be done voluntarily. There's no reason for me to believe as they always generally have been, they won't be done voluntarily.
OSBORN: Yes, sir. This is a serious case.
STEPHENS: I deal with serious cases every day, and frankly I respect the seriousness of this case. But this case is not going to jump ahead of the line of all the other cases that we have here or be handled in any other way. I surely respect everyone here and the seriousness of this.
But frankly, it takes priority, but we have other cases that take priority, too. And we're not going to stop what we're doing to make sure that we accommodate everybody inappropriately.
OSBORN: Well we just want to make sure, your honor, that all of the things that have been generated be preserved and that we get a chance to see them pursuant to statute, we're entitled to look through all of the law enforcement files and we just want to make sure that nothing disappears. And I think you can assure that with your order that nothing be destroyed. And I will get an order to you in that regard.
STEPHENS: All right. Anything else that you all need? Again, on the cell phone orders, you all need to either to talk about it or submit separate proposals to me and then do it as soon as you can. I will either accept one or the other or fashion my own.
OSBORN: OK.
STEPHENS: All right. OSBORN: Thank you, your honor.
STEPHENS: All right, thank you very much. Then we'll -- we're going to leave it on the first setting since you have not had a chance to look at all of the discovery. And we'll also set it for June the 19th.
OSBORN: Did we just move it for a second setting? Put it on for June 19th for a second setting?
STEPHENS: Well we can do that. We have other cases that are on June 19th. Frankly, administratively, are you satisfied that you have all of the discovery? I don't normally move it to a second setting until all the discovery has been complied with because frankly if you get too far along in the settings where you're not in a position to be able to keep -- to move it on.
OSBORN: We want to -- I want a trial as fast as we can. This young kid wants to go to school in the fall.
STEPHENS: OK.
OSBORN: And he can't until this is resolved.
STEPHENS: Well I mean, I understand and appreciate that. But again, given the number of cases that we've got in front of it and everything else, I can't surely can't assure you of that. All I can do is comply with your requests if they're reasonable. Mr. D.A., do you care if he goes to second?
NIFONG: Not really.
STEPHENS: You have turned over everything you got?
NIFONG: I turned over everything I have. My position is we're likely to at some point ...
PHILLIPS: You're watching a live hearing out of Durham, North Carolina. One of the three Duke University lacrosse players charged with rape is there in the courtroom. You'll see him in just a minute. These are his attorneys. We're talking about Reade Seligmann. It's his first court appearance since his indictment last month.
You're seeing his attorney right now, Kirk Osborn, wanting to use what's normally a brief hearing to ask the judge, Judge Ron Stephens for records compiled by authorities during the investigation as well as a reduction in Seligmann's bond. Also asking that the cell phone of the alleged victim be preserved. He wants to be able to see what calls were made prior to these allegations.
Jeffrey Toobin with us in New York. Tough judge, Jeffrey. He had no problem coming forward and say, "Bond reduction, sorry, not going to hear that. I think $400,000 is just fine considering this case."
TOOBIN: Well and also he was threatening the spectators with jail before the whole thing even started, which I thought was certainly a first for me, saying before any spectator had gotten up to say anything, he said, "I'm putting anybody in jail who talks." That's just not...
PHILLIPS: ... Jeffrey, forgive me. Hold your thought. We're going to get right to Milford, Michigan on the Jimmy Hoffa case. FBI agents digging around a farm in eastern Michigan. Let's see what we know.
(INTERRUPTED BY CNN COVERAGE OF LIVE EVENT)
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Also available this afternoon for questions after the briefing will be Chief Walli of the Milford Township police department and Chief Zimmerman of the Bloomfield Township police department. I will also be available for any questions you may have, along with Mr. Roberts after the conclusion of the press conference. So I will turn this over to Mr. Daniel Roberts of the FBI.
PHILLIPS: Apologies once again to our Jeffrey Toobin there. We were following the Duke investigation just a moment ago. Now we're moving over to Milford, Michigan. You're about to hear from Daniel Roberts with FBI on agents digging around a farm in eastern Michigan now, possibly remains of Jimmy Hoffa. Let's see what he has to say.
DAN ROBERTS, FBI: All set? My name is Dan Roberts, I'm the agent in charge of the FBI in Detroit, Michigan. And to my right is Chief Zimmerman from Bloomfield Township. And directly behind me is Chief Walli from the Milford police department. I wanted to spend just a couple of minutes with you today telling you were we're here and what's going on out here.
We probably won't be able to give you all of the answers that you're looking for, but maybe we can answer some of the questions for you. Right up front here so you won't have to ask questions. We'll answer a few questions for you at end here.
But I wanted to start off by saying that we began executing a federal search warrant yesterday morning here at this property at about 9:00 in the morning. Many of you know that already. Since that time, we have brought in a number of experts to help us with this search for Jimmy Hoffa.
We have brought in, for example, archaeologists and anthropologists from Michigan State University. We have brought in a number of engineers and consulted with a number of architects because we believe we may have to actually physically remove at least one structure here on the property in order to adequately finish our search of the property.
This is going to be a very long-term process. We plan to be out here for probably a company of weeks, at least, until we can finish with this entire search and make sure that we've covered everything adequately. The current proper owners here have been extremely cooperative with us. We appreciate that. They have allowed us great access and have been very friendly. Our main goal is to make sure that we do not disrupt their horse business here, which they have ongoing. They have, as you know, a number of horses on the property and we want to make sure that those horses are all taken care of and that they are allowed to continue on and run their horse business without disruption.
As you know, and I just want to reiterate, the current owners of the property were not here when Mr. Hoffa disappeared in 1975. The current owners have only been here about 10 years, as I recall. We have also used, as part of this search process, cadaver dogs as well. Yesterday we had the fortune of having the Detroit police department come out and bring their cadaver dogs to assist us with this search.
And we have also brought in additional heavy equipment today to help with this search. The FBI laboratory in Washington D.C. has sent out some experts to help us, as well. And we have also leaned on our evidence recovery people from the Bloomfield Township Police Department as well as the FBI to assist in this search.
So it's a real team effort out here and we appreciate the partnership that we have had over the years with the Bloomfield Township Police Department. And the case has been worked jointly hand in hand right from the beginning since 1975, really.
In terms of why we're here and what led us to this location. Unfortunately I'm not going to be able to give you the answers that you want there. The affidavit was sealed and remains sealed with the United States district court in the eastern district of Michigan. It was signed by a federal district judge two days ago. And remains sealed.
We are unable then to by law tell you the details of the affidavit that was contained in that search warrant application. So I will just say that we had a number of leads in. We have ever since 1975. We do not leave any lead uncovered. Obviously the ones that we think are more credible than others we will spend more time ...
PHILLIPS: Apologize for that. Having a bit of an audio problem. See if we can get it fixed here. Actually listening to Daniel Roberts, FBI out of Detroit, Michigan. And a foreman actually reported seeing a backhoe and other suspicious activity around this Detroit area horse farm on the day of one time teamster union leader Jimmy Hoffa's 1975 disappearance. And that is what led investigators to search the area. I understand our audio is better now. Let's continue to listen to the FBI agent Daniel Roberts.
DAN ROBERTS, FBI: What I would like to do -- Chief Walli. Did you want to say a couple words? Please do.
WAYNE WALLI, POLICE CHIEF, MILFORD TOWNSHIP: I'm Wayne Walli and I'm the chief of police in Milford. Our role here is pretty much to provide some small logistical support at least at this point in the investigation. And we tried our best to make sure we minimize the impact on the neighbors here. Which as Dan mentioned has been mentioned is considerable with the horses here that sometimes get a little skittish. But this is a gracious town and I'm sure we will accommodate the best we can. And we hope for a resolution -- it would be nice if it was a little quicker than those two weeks Dan mentioned. But we'll be patient with it.
QUESTION: ... Chief of police in 1975 -- Were you here then?
WALLI: No, I have been here 10 years. I worked 25 years for the city as an officer. Retired from there 10 years ago and came here. Not familiar with circumstances before that time.
QUESTION: A question of Mr. Roberts. What if anything ...
ROBERTS: There has been nothing significant recovered today. We don't anticipate by the way having any more of these press briefings unless we do find something significant that we can report to you all. We don't feel a need to call everybody together just if we're out there digging. But as of today we haven't found anything significant but the process is just starting.
PHILLIPS: So far they haven't turned up anything. And that's good to know if we do tell you we're going to have a news conference it's because the FBI definitely did find something. What is happening here in Milford, Michigan, is that the FBI along with other law enforcement officials are searching around this farm in Milford Township, Michigan.
It's kind of suburban area after an informant came forward and said he remembered seeing a backhoe, other suspicious activity around this horse farm the day that infamous teamsters union leader Jimmy Hoffa disappeared in 1975.
The tipster actually told investigators that part of the property has not been used since Hoffa's disappearance and therefore thought it might lead investigators to find something interesting today.
Jeffrey Toobin staying with us. Sorry, Jeffrey, didn't mean to cut you off during the Duke investigation discussion there. But the FBI decided to step up to the mike and of course we were eager to know if they found anything on this farm. This has happened a number of times and heard they were searching and they haven't been able to come across anything ...
TOOBIN: Those of us who live in the New York area know there have been persistent rumors that poor old Jimmy Hoffa lies beneath Giants Stadium in New Jersey ...
PHILLIPS: That's right.
TOOBIN: But that apparently is not the case. I don't know, Kyra, my favorite image from this whole story so far is last week the FBI agents knocking on these poor horse farmers. This house in Milford, Michigan. Excuse us, we would like to dig up your horse farm for the next two weeks looking for Jimmy Hoffa. What do you think you would think when you hear that kind of news?
PHILLIPS: It's a great story to tell your grandchildren.
TOOBIN: I think they were probably surprised would probably be my guess. You know, I guess good luck to them.
PHILLIPS: Say to the real estate agent you didn't tell me anything about this when we bought this horse farm.
TOOBIN: I think it was nice to the agent to say they had only owned the place for 10 years so they are not suspects. Jimmy has been gone a long time. No luck so far. We'll see what happens.
PHILLIPS: Jeffrey, you mentioned -- that's funny. You mentioned that there's that rumor that Hoffa is entombed in concrete at Giant Stadium in New Jersey. I came up with a couple other rumors that are out there that have been put together on the Internet, ground up and thrown to the fishes in a Florida swamp.
That's one that surfaced, obliterated in a mob owned fat rendering plant that has since burned down. Burned in a mob-owned incinerate incinerator in Detroit. Here was the final theory I came across. Put in a car that was sold as scrap metal. All of those are quite interesting ways to go.
TOOBIN: We're having a little discussion here. Some confusion about whether the rumor was he was buried under the 50-yard line or in one of end zones.
PHILLIPS: I thought it was the end zone.
TOOBIN: That's what I thought too, but since doesn't appear to be under either one and we don't know for sure but we're on top of the story, I think it's safe to say.
PHILLIPS: Well, it's always interesting. The mystery abounds us in many ways. And if we hear they are digging we got to cover it. You never know.
TOOBIN: Absolutely. I never know.
PHILLIPS: We're waiting for that day since 1975. All right, Jeffrey. Thanks so much.
Another, of course, event that Jeffrey and I were talking about and that is the Duke investigation. We were following the live court proceedings as we saw one of the accused in court with his attorneys. Jason Carroll is there outside the courtroom. Jason, we were sort of starting to talk about it until we had to go to the Jimmy Hoffa story.
But maybe you can bring us up to date to what happened here. Pretty uneventful. Basically they are just trying to get the cell phone from the alleged victim, right, to lead to some records that well defense lawyers hope will lead to the innocence of this young man?
JASON CARROLL, CNN CORRESPONDENT: That is true. Also want to provide some of the back story in terms of what is going on here. You heard the Judge Ron Stephens. He was very stern before this proceeding started, basically saying he wanted everyone to come in and sit down. That anyone who spoke out of turn would be held in contempt of court and arrested.
The reason for that could be because just as Reade Seligmann was walking into the courtroom he was threatened and he was cursed at by a man out in the hallway. Some sort of threatening comment was made to Reade Seligmann before he walked in. So perhaps that's some reason why the judge seemed to be a little irritated before the proceeding got started.
Also, what would be the back story about the cell phone. You heard a lot of argument going on about the cell phone. Basically defense attorneys want to get their hands on that cell phone. Right now it's in the possession of the police. And the reason for that is because they want their expert to be able to look at the cell phone. They want to be able to try to get from the cell phone information that could lead them to who this young woman was calling and when in terms of how they build together their time line.
Another point, that had to do with the bond reduction. The bond right now is set at $400,000 for Reade Seligmann. His attorneys wanted it reduced to $40,000. The reason for that is just a few weeks ago I had a conversation with Reade Seligmann's father.
He told me even though this is a family that comes from means, this is a family that has really been put under a financial strain because of this. They have had to pay for experts. Had to pay for attorneys. So it's really been a financial strain. Part of the reason why they want the bond reduced from $400,000 to $40,000.
The judge in this case said the $400,000 bond was appropriate for the charges in this particular case.
So in terms of the cell phone, going back to that, the judge basically deciding that both sides if they can are going to have to work that out in terms of which expert gets to look at it when. And if they can't work it out, then he will intervene and he'll do it for them.
So a lot of sort of legal wrangling that's going on right now. There is a mike set up outside the courthouse here in Durham County. We're waiting to see once Reade Seligmann and his attorney, Kirk Osborn if when they leave to see if they will approach the mike and have a statement for us. Kyra?
PHILLIPS: All right, let us know, Jason. Thanks so much.
TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com
