Let's pull on this piece of string
It's notable what first blush arguments the defence did not present, which we might have expected
1. She wasn't evading justice, because she committed no crime - the kids are actually fine!
2. She wasn't evading justice - the trip was long planned, and timing a coincidence.
Instead no real submission was made beyond normal $ precedent. Which leaves one wondering what would be the point of bail before a contested extradition hearing where the defence has no submissions to make, or at least seemingly no interest in establishing a direction of travel for the court at this time?
I get that at this interlocutory stage, the defence may not want to get into all of that but it does leave me wondering that LV won't even make these claims?
So then, like you say, the state has evidence this was all planned before the death of CV ....
Why did she move to Rox. for such a short time?