Before you make such statements you need to know more about the road and whether it was lit and whether it would have been dark at the time he was riding. We have no lights at all on our road and we are not in the middle of no where. And if he did not need lights then it also means he would be spotted easily. And also ( I don't know how many times I have to say this) He had NO way of knowing he would not be a suspect for a month. He had no way of knowing the police would fall for his story . He had no way of knowing they would not suspect him from the beginning - especially with the two shot scenario - you think he would have been quaking in his boots as soon as they went inside and thinking they would arrest him on the spot. The fact that you think he had a month to get rid of evidence is irrelevant. For example Julie said on the night she KNEW he had done it so she could have told the police the very next day - so to get out of that scenario he would have to had got rid of any evidence.
Well he would not be seen on the roads if there were no houses or cars. Miller said he would certainly not be seen if going along the sea wall. RB said this route passed no dwellings.
But he may have gone some of the way by road.
As I said there has been a closure thread on the disposal of the clothes. Amsterdam, London, Eastbourne, St Tropez, you name it. He may have just put his clothes in the washing machine when arriving back. He seemed pretty calm when with the police. Probably believing he was watertight.