A Conviction Without an Investigation: Structured Findings from an AI-Assisted Case Review Demonstrating a Miscarriage of Justice in the Case of John Lee Osborne

John Lee Osborne: The photo is of the time John was awarded for saving a man’s life who had been stabbed in the neck. John jumped in and fought off the attackers who were armed and then carried out first aid which he was trained to do. He saved this man’s life whilst on bail.

Introduction

This article sets out the findings of a structured re-analysis of the conviction of John Lee Osborne. The review was conducted through systematic examination of police records, disclosure schedules, digital evidence, trial transcripts, judicial directions, and solicitor correspondence, using both traditional document comparison and AI-assisted analytical review (as described in note on methodology below).

What emerges is not a single procedural error, but a convergence of multiple, independent failures. Each is sufficient, on its own, to undermine the safety of the conviction. Taken together, they demonstrate a prosecution advanced without a lawful investigation, sustained by retrospective reconstruction of evidence, unlawful jury directions, and the absence of effective adversarial safeguards.

Procedural background

John Lee Osborne was arrested in October 2015 in connection with allegations of serious sexual offences arising from a former intimate relationship.

In August 2018, nearly three years after his arrest, he was summoned to Bristol Magistrates’ Court and charged. The case was initially presented on eight counts, which were later expanded to fifteen counts before trial.

The manner in which those charges were constructed, amended, and prosecuted — and the evidential basis relied upon — forms the subject of this analysis.

1. No lawful police investigation occurred between 2015 and 2018

Solicitor correspondence from November 2017, January 2018, and February 2018 repeatedly states:

“The police investigation is still ongoing and there is no further update at this time.”

These letters are decisive. Nearly three years after arrest, there was no evidential progress to report.

This directly contradicts later police claims made via Subject Access Requests that:

• a full investigation was completed in 2015,

• an offence chronology existed at that time,

• and investigative activity concluded shortly after arrest.

It also contradicts 2018 police “Report Book” entries marking all counts as “Final” without contemporaneous investigative narrative.

The only rational inference is that no substantive investigation existed during this period. The case remained dormant because the contemporaneous evidence — particularly digital communications — did not support the allegations.

2. Charges were not brought until 2018, despite an arrest in 2015

The correspondence establishes the following undisputed chronology:

• Nov 2017 – investigation “ongoing”

• Jan 2018 – investigation “ongoing”

• Feb 2018 – investigation “ongoing”

• Aug 2018 – John is summoned to court and charged, said to follow his arrest on 21 October 2015

This demonstrates that no charge was brought in 2015. Charges were initiated only in mid-2018, after nearly three years of inactivity.

This aligns with other findings that the offence report and investigation narrative were constructed retrospectively, back-filled once procedural pressure forced movement.

3. Retrospective construction of the investigation file

The police investigation file exhibits multiple indicators inconsistent with contemporaneous record-keeping, including:

• identical timestamps across entries,

• duplicated text,

• missing pages,

• narrative summaries incompatible with real-time investigative logs.

These features strongly indicate post-hoc compilation rather than a lawful, continuous investigation.

4. Contradictory and unreliable disclosure

The evidential record is internally inconsistent in material respects, including:

• custody records obtained via SAR that contradict police interview notes,

• incorrect recording of the address of arrest,

• message evidence presented at trial that is incomplete, lacks timestamps, and shows broken pagination.

These failures undermine the reliability of the prosecution case at a foundational level.

5. Retrospective indictments contradicted by contemporaneous messages

Many indictment dates are irreconcilable with over 380 pages of contemporaneous digital messages sent by the complainant.

When analysed chronologically, these messages frequently contradict the prosecution narrative for the alleged offence dates, indicating that indictments were selected retrospectively to fit a narrative rather than derived from evidence.

6. Disclosure breaches: undisclosed contemporaneous communications

A 2019 forensic examination recovered deleted communications between the complainant and another male individual with whom she was contemporaneously involved.

These communications were never disclosed to the defence, despite their clear relevance to:

• credibility,

• motive,

• and the prosecution narrative.

This constitutes a serious disclosure failure capable, on its own, of rendering the conviction unsafe.

(No allegation is made against this individual; the relevance lies solely in the nondisclosure of contemporaneous material evidence).

7. Omission of critical psychological context

The complainant’s documented mental health history — including depression, anxiety, medication, and self-harm — was not disclosed to the defence. No medical records were obtained or reviewed.

Instead, unsupported judicial assumptions were substituted for evidence, depriving the jury of essential context.

8. Prosecution narrative contradicted by the complainant’s conduct

The narrative of fear and coercion is incompatible with documented behaviour, including:

• continued consensual sexual contact,

• voluntary visits,

• attendance at John’s Army passing-out parade with his family,

• and seeking his assistance with a job application and examination.

These facts were never reconciled with the prosecution case.

9. Absence of any effective defence investigation

John was treated as a private client without informed understanding. Defence solicitors accepted payment but conducted no independent investigation, repeatedly relaying police assurances of an “ongoing investigation” without challenge.

This resulted in the complete absence of adversarial scrutiny at critical stages.

10. The jury was directed using an illegal, non-statutory test for consent

The trial judge’s written Route to Verdict instructed the jury using criteria not found in statute or case law, including:

• assertions that “giving in” equates to submission rather than consent,

• reliance on emotional pressure as negating consent,

• a requirement for “true freedom”, an invented standard absent from the Sexual Offences Act 2003.

Section 74 SOA defines consent as:

“agreement by choice, with the freedom and capacity to make that choice.”

The judge unlawfully elevated this into an absolute standard, collapsed the distinction between pressure and coercion, and effectively imported a Section 76 presumption where none applied.

The result was to render acquittal legally impossible.

Conclusion

Each failure identified above constitutes an independent ground capable of undermining the safety of the conviction.

Taken together, they demonstrate a prosecution advanced:

• without a lawful investigation,

• on retrospectively constructed evidence,

• in breach of disclosure obligations,

• under unlawful jury directions,

• and without effective defence safeguards.

This conviction is not marginally unsafe. It is structurally unsound.

Final note

This analysis is evidence-led, document-anchored, and independently verifiable. It relies on the record, not conjecture.

By Anne Marie Osborne

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Methodology

The following explains how the conclusions set out in my accompanying submission were reached.

Over several years, my son’s case has generated a very large volume of material, including trial transcripts, message records, disclosure schedules, forensic reports, judicial directions, and correspondence. Due to the volume and fragmentation of this material, it was not previously possible to assess all components together in a coherent, structured way.

To address this, I undertook a systematic review using the following approach:

1. Document capture and organisation

All available documents were scanned, digitised, indexed, and organised chronologically and thematically. This included:

• message transcripts

• indictment dates

• disclosure records

• judicial remarks

• sentencing material

• and post-trial correspondence

2. Cross-referencing and comparison

Documents were analysed side-by-side to compare:

• alleged offence dates against contemporaneous messages

• judicial findings against the evidential record

• disclosure obligations against what was actually provided

• sentencing conclusions against the factual basis relied upon

3. AI-assisted analytical review

AI tools were used as an analytical aid, not as a decision-maker.

Their function was to:

• identify inconsistencies and repetitions

• flag contradictions across large text sets

• highlight missing links and unexplained assumptions

• surface patterns that are difficult to detect through manual reading alone

All conclusions were then independently verified by reference back to the original source documents.

4. Findings

This process revealed:

• significant contradictions between the prosecution narrative and contemporaneous communications

• disclosure failures relating to digital material

• judicial assumptions unsupported by evidence

• and the cumulative impact of these failures on both conviction safety and the dangerousness finding

These issues are not isolated. They are systemic and interconnected. When viewed together, they materially undermine the reliability of the outcome.

5. Purpose of this submission

This methodology does not replace legal judgment.

It ensures that all relevant material is visible, connected, and properly contextualised, so that legal decision-makers can assess the case on a complete and accurate factual.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

For more on the conviction of John Lee Osborne see: How can a rape conviction be based on only one side of the story and without full disclosure?