Two things stuck out at first:

1) The case kept disintegrating: The "best evidence" kept collapsing in on itself. The "experts" on the case (e.g. ST) turned out to be incompetents, charlatans, frauds, and liars. When tests of a theory fail again and again and again, and when the testers of the theory are discovered to be incompetents, charlatans, frauds, and liars, it's time to come up with a different theory (and new testers).

2) The evidence presented in Schiller's book (not the book itself, but the ransom note, the circumstances of the crime, etc.) made it quite clear that this crime was committed by a very cold, calculating type of person --- a personality type very different from Patsy and John.

Patsy and John have asked ST: What in our background causes you to think that we are even capable of doing such a thing? This is something that ST has never answered --- I believe because there isn't anything. So the question should be: What in ST's background (and the background of all the other incompetents, charlatans, frauds, and liars) causes them to think that either Patsy or John are capable of doing such a thing? In my opinion, anyone who has investigated this case who still thinks that one of the elder Ramseys is responsible should do some serious introspective thinking.