I hope like h*** those kids are NOT currently in public school.
It's there somewhere; I remember it, too.
I thought that was obvious from the hearing.
Oh, totally. I kept getting so sidetracked watching his body language and speech patterns that I forgot to watch her! IMO, he did not have any belief that the hearing to reduce bail was going to accomplish anything, and was just doing what his client wanted him to. Compare his mannerisms and the way he's speaking during the first portion, about the request for bail reduction, with the way he speaks and behaves after the judge has made her decision and he moves on the the waiver. Much more confident and comfortable. Honestly was surprised at how much he was broadcasting his discomfort with having to make the request; it didn't fit with his apparent years of experience. It screamed of "just doing this because I have to, not because I believe in it". And, since Kauai seems to be a very small community with very few judges, the judge is almost certain to be very familiar with his typical courtroom demeanor. Her words - and disdain - were for Lori, IMO, and not the defense attorney, who was simply doing his job. However, I'm doubtful Lori picked up on any of that.
A defense attorney does not necessarily believe their client is innocent. A good one will not make unrealistic promises to their client; rather, they will help them seek the most favorable option available to them. Often, an attorney will encourage their client to plea bargain to lesser charges because they believe the client is likely to be convicted at trial and thus have much greater punishment. It can be pretty difficult for an attorney to deal with a client who will not accept reality. In this case, I suspect that Lori demanded that he fight extradition and for reduced bail, and that a compromise was reached where he convinced her that if the judge denied the reduction, her chances of reduced bail would be better once she was back in Idaho, which made her willing to sign the waiver.
I can't figure out why the media even thinks that 10+ year old debt and bankruptcy filing is relevant to the case. Heck, they could have ignored the debts and had them off their credit report by now.
Um... I've never had to prove that I lived in the same city as where I got a PO Box. In fact, I've usually gotten one months before I moved, before I even found housing, so that I had somewhere to forward mail to ahead of time. For both same-state and different-state moves. You have to have ID, and you have to prove your current physical address, but it doesn't have to be local to the PO Box. It's incredibly common in the region I'm from for people to get boxes at a different office because the size they want is unavailable at the nearest one. (Or, they're completely full up, which happens at one particular location at least once a year.)
The last time I had to add multiple adults to my box, I simply added all their names. The only reason they needed to show ID was if they were going to want to be able to enter the post office and be handed the mail; the post office doesn't care who picks it up with a key. And any name will end up in the box at most post offices, so long as it has the correct address. Even using a pseudonym on a PO box is relatively simple, just add it to the list. The ID proof is so they can track down at least one real person in connection with the box, if necessary. (I've had a lot more difficulty trying to get them to STOP delivering mail to me that was not for me/my household. That's pretty much futile, IMO.)