Imagine if this happened to one of our loved ones. We would want the truth and, if possible, justice.
Assessing the evidence surrounding the death of Nathan Osman
The death of 30-year-old Welsh father-of-four Nathan Osman in Benidorm in September 2024 continues to raise serious questions for his family, who believe the initial investigation by local authorities failed to explore the possibility of foul play. As new information emerges—much of it uncovered by the family themselves—the debate has grown over whether the shortcomings stemmed from corruption, complicity, incompetence, or simply systemic limitations within the local policing and judicial process.
This article reviews the evidence, gaps, and context in order to assess what is known, what remains unclear, and what might reasonably explain the problems identified.
The known facts
Nathan Osman travelled to Benidorm for a weekend holiday with friends. Less than a day later, his body was discovered at the base of a remote 200-metre cliff by an off-duty police officer. A post-mortem examination concluded that he died from injuries consistent with a fall from height.
Local police characterised the death as “a tragic accident”, stating Nathan had left his group and attempted to walk alone back to his hotel. No crime scene was established, and no forensic preservation appears to have been carried out.
However, several elements—all now public—have prompted the family to challenge that conclusion:
- The location: Nathan was found in the opposite direction to his hotel, in a sparsely populated, unlit area with no clear reason for him to visit.
- Phone health-app data: According to the family, this suggests his movement speed was inconsistent with walking and more in line with travelling by vehicle.
- CCTV and bank activity: The family say they have identified dozens of potential CCTV cameras that local investigators overlooked and claim attempts were made to use Nathan’s bank cards after his death.
- Timeline: Data appears to indicate Nathan died roughly 30 minutes after last appearing on CCTV walking in the direction of his hotel—well before he could realistically have reached the remote cliff on foot.
The family’s concerns persuaded Spanish prosecutors to reopen the case. South Wales Police, conducting enquiries for the coroner, have reportedly also expressed concern about the limited evidence preserved by the original investigation.
Where the investigation appears to have fallen short
1. Crime-scene preservation
According to the family, the area where Nathan was found was not cordoned off, documented, or examined for tyre marks, footprints, or DNA. If accurate, this would represent a significant lapse, not necessarily indicative of misconduct but certainly of procedural deficiency.
2. CCTV review
The family independently identified 27 cameras that might have captured Nathan or any vehicle involved. They say Spanish police either did not locate them initially or later dismissed them as non-operational or overwritten.
While CCTV retention periods vary widely in Spain—many private systems record for 7–30 days—failing to identify these cameras early may have permanently lost potentially vital footage.
3. Consideration of alternative hypotheses
The family’s central grievance is that homicide or third-party involvement was seemingly not considered at the outset. Even in cases where an accident appears likely, European policing standards typically expect investigators to keep all hypotheses open until evidence rules them out.
If the family’s account is accurate, the early classification of the case as accidental may have narrowed investigative focus prematurely.
Possible explanations: corruption, complicity, or incompetence?
It is important to emphasise that there is currently no verified evidence proving corruption or deliberate complicity by any Spanish police officers. The case remains under judicial review, and Spanish police have declined public comment for that reason.
However, the observable issues allow analysts to consider the plausible scenarios:
1. Incompetence or under-resourcing
This is often the most common explanation for flawed investigations internationally. Spain, like many countries, experiences:
- high tourist-related caseloads,
- stretched local policing resources,
- variations in investigative rigor between regions,
- reliance on judicial oversight rather than proactive police-led inquiry.
Mistakes such as failing to secure a scene, overlooking CCTV, or prematurely closing lines of inquiry can occur in such environments.
2. Systemic or procedural limitations
In Spain, police investigations operate under the authority of investigating judges (juzgados de instrucción). This often leads to:
- slower early investigative responses,
- fragmented responsibility,
- limited police autonomy to deviate from initial judicial assumptions.
If the death was quickly assumed to be accidental, the judicial framework may simply not have directed further examination.
3. Complicity or corruption
This is the most serious hypothesis and currently the least evidenced. To argue complicity, one would need indications that police intentionally suppressed evidence, protected specific individuals, or interfered with findings. No publicly available information meets that threshold.
The family’s experience—particularly the apparent dismissal of their CCTV leads or the lack of early forensic work—can create a perception of deliberate obstruction. But these same symptoms also occur in cases of negligence, bureaucratic inertia, or cultural differences in policing norms.
What remains unclear
Several questions remain unanswered:
- Why was the remote location not treated as potentially suspicious?
- Why were no tyre tracks or footprints recorded?
- What attempts were made to identify nearby vehicles?
- Why did Spanish police reportedly return little evidence to UK authorities?
- Was any witness canvassing done in the remote area where Nathan was found?
Until Spanish judicial authorities release findings or until independent enquiries are completed, these gaps cannot be definitively interpreted.
Conclusion: What does the evidence actually support?
Based on the publicly available information, the evidence most strongly supports the conclusion that:
The initial investigation was likely inadequate and arguably negligent, but there is insufficient proof of corruption or intentional complicity.
The family’s concerns are justified:
- Key investigative steps appear not to have been taken.
- Potential evidence appears to have been overlooked or lost.
- Alternative hypotheses were seemingly not explored.
Whether these failures stemmed from under-resourcing, procedural rigidity, human error, or something more serious remains for the Spanish judicial process to establish.
What is clear is that had the investigation been more thorough from the beginning, many of today’s unanswered questions may already have been resolved.
For now, the family’s determination has ensured that the case remains open, giving at least some hope that the full truth of Nathan Osman’s final hours may one day be uncovered.
