I do see certain elements (the note, the wrist ligatures, the tape) as being (seemingly) obviously fake. So, while I accept that someone may have faked a kidnapping I also notice that they seem to have taken steps to hide their entry/exit. A Ramsey would want to, almost need to, make that entry/exit obvious but they did not. In fact, they did the opposite by telling the police that all the doors were locked. This contradicts the supposed original purpose (as does the body being in the house).
How actually someone's entry/exit was hidden?
Making the obvious point of entry was pretty difficult. They couldn't have broken any door or smash a window, as it makes a lot of noise. It would have been heard very well in the quiet neighborhood and sure someone would have called the LE. The Ramseys did not have enough of skills and knowledge required to open any lock without the key, so that was neither an option.
So, while I do see elements of an obviously (and I make of the obviously) fake kidnapping, I dont see the evidence that the Ramseys were the ones doing that faking, and some of the evidence actually seems to contradict that premise.
The question is why would an intruder fake anything. Fake ties, fake LOTR-sized ransom note, fake gag, all of it is time consummating and therefore risk increasing. And, from the point of view of an intruder, it is completely useless. It does not help him to commit the crime he planned in any way, it only makes all this business riskier and more dangerous. So why bother?
Can we say that an intruder would have no need to write an obviously fake ransom note? No. How could we? Would an intruder not bring a prepared ransom note; would he leave both note and body in the house? These are not objections or reasons to doubt an intruder was responsible for this crime; these are really only questions. Perhaps, only the intruder can answer them.
Oh, but these are objections. And reasons to doubt. Writing three pages long ransom note requires some level of comfort for writer. You don't sit and write if you feel that you're that close to being surprised by someone and caught red handed.
Being in the victim's house, with the victim's family sleeping in their beds upstairs and with said victim laying dead in the basement, does not give a comfort at all. Being in the victim's home, a home full of sleeping people is very risky and the perp would have to be totally insane, to spend there an amount of time required for writing a letter that long. Don't forget, that the ransom letter was not written in the first try, the author made few beginings before he started the right one. That says he (or she) felt extremely comfortable and at ease i the Ramseys house. I don't think any intruder could reach such levels of comfort in such circumstances.
So we are supposed to think, that the intruder spent at least a hour extra in the house, writing a letter that was completely and utterly useless, as the dead body of supposedly kidnapped JonBenet was there, in the basement, showing that there was no kidnaping and no need to pay a dime to the perp. Why would the intruder waste his time and increase the risk of being caught, writting a letter, carying about it's form as the try-outs suggest, and then render that meticously written note completely useless by not taking JB with him, dead or alive? Again, from the vievpoint of an intruder this has no sense at all.
But it has a lot of sense from the viewpoint of the Ramseys as the perps. The letter is supposed to be that huge arrow that points away from them. "Our child might lying dead in our basement, but we did not do that! It was a foreign faction! An intruder! Not us!"
