Why stage her body whilst also writing a fake ransom????
To make it look like an intruder considered kidnapping but then killed her. But you could apply the same logic to a putative intruder. Why write a lengthy note only to kill the target?
Handwriting analysis is extremely inaccurate and very very weak evidence.
Agreed.
And also IF the torch was the ‘weapon’ that Burke hit her with why oh why would they leave it laying on the kitchen counter after for all to see. They were not to know there wasn’t any forensics on it. At the very least it would be tucked away to be got rid of later. Having gone to all the trouble of doing all this staging they decide to leave the weapon out??? It’s not like it would be missed like if a knife was missing from a knife block or a vase that was always in the hallway was suddenly gone for someone to notice. It was a torch. I’d go out on a limb and say it doesn’t stay permanently on the counter top and wouldn’t be missed if it was removed.
You're positing the idea of an intruder who was so incompetent that they spent about 30 minutes writing a ransom note only to kill the target (as opposed to bringing a note with them). Why baulk at the idea that this imaginary intruder might also fuck up with the murder weapon? Also, in your scenario, how do you know there wasn't another murder weapon?
The narrative that is to be believed to conclude it was the family is so farfetched and convoluted with so much that doesn’t make any sense that I have to rule it out (as a completely unqualified average joe who’s watched a few too many crime docs 
)
LOL, I'm just an average Joe too! I think the intruder theory is far more convoluted and unlikely than the statistical Occam's Razor - which is that a family member did it.
---
If they were staging her kidnapping, why would they leave her body in their house knowing how incriminating that would be? It is a very short drive from their house to the mountains/wilderness of Colorado, in the time it's taking to write that long note and stage the scene one of them could easily have driven out to somewhere remote and buried her not to be found for a long time if ever (which is IMO what the McCanns did!)
All these questions could equally be asked of a putative intruder. And you're right that a real, halfway competent kidnapper would not risk spending 30 minutes in the target's house writing a note. They'd write it beforehand. And bring it with them. Mind you, genuine ransom notes are always very, very short. Not the rambling essay Patsy produced.
I also don't see why they would put the exact amount of John's bonus in the letter, knowing again how suspicious this would look towards the family.
How would the 'foreign faction' know about the bonus amount? Actually come to that, why would the kidnappers call themselves a 'foreign faction'? They wouldn't be foreign to themselves. ISIS / IRA / Boko Haram don't describe themselves as 'foreign' do they? A faction can only be foreign to someone who isn't part of the faction. Patsy screwed up there.
I think the idea that a NINE year old kid could fashion that garrotte and have the strength to strangle his sister so hard the cord gets fully embedded in her neck, then bring her all the way down to the basement pretty laughable.
Mary Bell aged 10 was able to MANUALLY strangle two quite large, well nourished three year olds. It's not laughable, it's chilling. And eminently physically possible.
Everyone who's convinced Burke did it seems to be conveniently forgetting the foreign male DNA at the scene which rules out the family!
If you have germophobe tendencies (as I do) I suggest you stop reading now....but every single item of underwear or indeed any clothing you and I have ever bought had foreign DNA on it. From the men and women who manufactured and packed the clothes.
