Gosh you are incredibly defensive and prickly aren’t you? So you accuse me of assuming that a 14 year old boy would walk at at least the same speed if not faster than a 60 year old woman but apparently know that it would take him around 20 minutes to walk 3/4 of a mile?? How does that work then? How do you know he wasn’t a fast walker, or even ran part of the way? And since when was lame a derogatory remark to describe someone with a walking impediment? I can’t keep up with the correct terminology for that so please forgive me, though I wasn’t even accusing you of anything. I have a walking impediment btw, following a serious fall, should have mentioned that when I wrote about how long it takes me to walk into town. And let’s not forget SOMEONE murdered Jodi on this apparently heavily frequented path and apparently NOONE came forward to describe the ACTUAL murderer leaving the scene of the crime covered in blood! How ludicrous is that?!
I'm not defensive at all. I'm just pointing out that some people may find such terminology offensive. Let's not dwell on that.
The time it took him is not really key, whether it was 20m ambling or 10 minutes walking fast does not alter the fact that he allegedly walked the full length of that path and was seen by nobody. I'm not going to try and convince you how unlikely that was. Why don't you try it at the end of June on a sunny dry day and see if you can go unseen from one end to the other? As I said, I've done it, more than once actually and both times I was seen by at least several people.
There's a very obvious reason why nobody came forward that saw anyone leaving the murder scene covered in blood, because that person did not leave by walking on Roan's Dyke Path because of the risk of being seen. Why would there be 2 people up that path at the V at 5.15pm the alleged time of the murder, that seemed to develop amnesia in Court regarding what they were doing? All they said in Court was that they didn't remember what they were doing, now not even the "Mitchell Did It Brigade" can possibly argue that is even remotely believable. If they weren't trying to hide something, they would remember what they were doing, be it smoking hash, having a picnic or any other activity someone might do in the woods. However, these 2 "can't remember"? Anyone with 3 brain cells knows that they lied about that. So the question is - WHY did they have to lie? Those 2 were involved in some way in this, even if it's only as far as hearing something or seeing something.
It's also very strange that the killer manages to disappear off the face of the Earth, but at 5.15pm there was a moped parked right next to where the murder took place. How coincidental that there just happens to be a means of escape sitting there at exactly 5.15pm without risking walking anywhere to get away. A means of escape which Police were never able to examine because it was disposed of in a hurry. If F and D were up there having a picnic, what's the hurry to get rid of the moped before the Police seized it? Lothian Police made a pigs ear of this case allowing the crime scene to be contaminated and failing to properly investigate other potential suspects.