I am suggesting that an AI can easily invent plausible-sounding scenarios by which the government lawyers (falsely) explain that you actually did a crime, and parallel construction can be used to explain how "they" found out about it.
Again: with what evidence? You wouldn't have any if you simply invented the crime. If you're going to invent the crime then the evidence chain can start wherever you want - "oh look we found the murder weapon in their front yard where they dropped it after killing the victim in the house and fleeing".
And as noted: a predictive AI model trained off publicly available data wouldn't be the sort of thing you need to keep secret - it just also isn't actually evidence either. But no one's going to question "the AI said it might've happened, so we went to the location it told us too and look at all this evidence we just found lying around there".
I am suggesting that an AI can easily invent plausible-sounding scenarios by which the government lawyers (falsely) explain that you actually did a crime, and parallel construction can be used to explain how "they" found out about it.