‘Favorable to Ms. Dikeman': Judge Reads the Destroyed-Records Inference to the Jury | Pt 26

Pled to neglect, not abuse. Convicted of nothing in 2011. The State's prior-acts stipulation just told the jury all of it. The State has been building a prior-acts pattern argument across this trial. The 2011 Tapscott head injury and the 2013 Tapscott neglect case are the centerpieces. Both involved Josie Dikeman as a caretaker for twenty-one-month-old Haley Tapscott in 2011 and three-year-old Haley Tapscott in 2013. The stipulation is the legal vehicle that gets those events into the trial record. Watch what the document actually says. Every 2011 doctor who evaluated Haley either could not rule out the reported stair fall or affirmatively concluded the discolorations were consistent with it. None classified the injuries as abuse. In 2013, the orthopedic surgeon did not conclude that the hand x-rays showed definite fractures or evidence of non-accidental trauma. Dikeman and her then-partner pled to child neglect as a party to a crime. Neither was charged with intentional child abuse. The destroyed-evidence inference goes to Dikeman: the jury may infer that 2011 evidence destroyed under the agency's retention policy would have been favorable to her. The cautionary instruction follows. Identity only. Propensity-free reasoning required. The Court tells the jury what they can and cannot do with the prior-acts evidence. --- WATCH WITH JUSTICE 3:11 to 7:08 - Housekeeping and typo corrections. The second correction is load-bearing: the destroyed-evidence inference is explicitly limited to 2011 only. Dikeman does not get the inference for the 2013 matter. 10:25 to 11:04 - The jury comes back in. The Court explains the procedure: stipulation read aloud, jury copies, cautionary instruction at the end. 11:04 to 15:52 - The 2011 matter. Twenty-one-month-old Haley Tapscott. The skull fractures, the stair fall report, the police walkthrough finding nothing inconsistent. Watch each doctor: McDaniels and Richmond unwilling to classify as abuse, Hogan affirmatively concluding the discolorations were consistent with the reported stair fall, Budzack and Hodgson-Klein declining to call it abuse. The matter closes with one sentence the State did not want highlighted: Dikeman was not convicted of any crime related to Haley's injuries in 2011. 15:52 to 20:58 - The 2013 matter. The hand x-rays. The orthopedic surgeon does not call them definite fractures or evidence of non-accidental trauma. The pediatrician does. The missed appointments. The weight from the 85th percentile to the 6th percentile. The food restriction statement from Dikeman's then-partner. 20:58 to 25:57 - The differential treatment pattern. Becky Eilers, Paula Hernandez, child witness GMER. Watch the closing line of this section: every household member told investigators they did not see Dikeman or her then-partner intentionally harm Haley. 25:57 to 27:20 - The plea. September 9, 2013. Child neglect as a party to a crime. Neither charged with intentional child abuse. Then the destroyed-evidence inference language: the jury may infer that 2011 evidence destroyed under the agency's retention policy would have been favorable to Dikeman. 27:20 to 29:38 - The cautionary instruction. Identity only. The jury cannot use this evidence to conclude the defendant has bad character. The Court reads the propensity-free reasoning requirement: the jury cannot reason that because Dikeman allegedly did it then, she did it now. --- COMPLETE CASE COVERAGE justiceisaprocess.com SUBSCRIBE for daily trial coverage and hit the notification bell so you never miss testimony. JOIN to unlock the Case Notebook powered by NotebookLM, where you can chat with the evidence, ask questions about testimony, and go deeper than any comment section allows. CASE BACKGROUND REPORT: https://www.justiceisaprocess.com/wi-... Complete case overview including charges, timeline, key players, and legal analysis. Start here if you are new to this case. PLAYLISTS AND RESOURCES Website: https://www.justiceisaprocess.com/cov... Full Trial Live Broadcasts:    • Wisconsin v. Josie Dikeman — Full Trial Li...   No Breaks Edition:    • Wisconsin v. Josie Dikeman — No Breaks Edi...   Trial Analysis Podcast:    • Wisconsin v. Josie Dikeman — Trial Podcast   Key Moments and Testimony:    • Wisconsin v. Josie Dikeman — Key Moments &...   Subscribe for Daily Coverage:    / @justiceisaprocess   FAIR USE AND EDUCATIONAL PURPOSE This content is produced under Fair Use (17 U.S.C. 107) for news reporting, criticism, and educational purposes. We provide transformative commentary on public court proceedings, advancing public understanding of the judicial process through timestamps, analysis, and educational context. #JusticeIsAProcess #DikermanTrial #SecretsInTheHome