Okay, let me bring this together, just that I get it too:
1.) Maureen worked strictly from a hotel in Manhattan and refused to work outside of Manhattan. That doesn't say, she wouldn't do outcalls in Manhattan.
2.) She called from the bus terminal, which indicates, she was on her way home. Whatever time it was, she was finished with her business.
3.) Even if she didn't check out from the hotel, she would have taken her laptop if she had with it in Manhattan in the first place, but that would mean, the robber would have taken it. So, the laptop had to be in CT, not in the hotel room, there is simply no other way.
4.) The bus terminal is near Times Square, did I get that right (I'm in the Midwest, nowhere near NY)? Remember, at least one of the killer's phone calls to Mellissa's sister was pinged back to Times Square.
5.) Bus Terminals have some attraction to serial killers. Even at the peak of traffic, there is always a shady corner. Gacy abducted from bus terminals, I remember a German case of a guy who abducted girls from a bus terminal and I'm sure, I will find more if I dig. The nice thing, from the pov of a serial killer, is, that nobody really pays attention because everyone is too busy with the own stuff.
6.) This whole ad-business is a bit foggy. Okay, they renewed ads ... and okay, they asked friends to do it. But who did Maureen ask to do her ads? There must be someone.
Now, lets speculate a little:
Maureen was at the bus stop, not at LI when we have the last trace. She could have asked for the money, we talk here about five dollars? The desperation to pull a quick trip couldn't have been that big and, if it was, a ten minute quickie would have brought her the money rather than making out with a new client (the ads didn't include the cell phone number? If so, there had to be a contact person. She couldn't read her emails directly, remember the laptop problem).
That places Maureen and her killer in Manhattan, near Times Square (where he also was pinged with Melissa's phone much later). But then, what do we have here? Was Maureen just a victim of convenience? That would mean, our killer either started then to establish his signature part of hunting for Craigslist escorts instead of street corner girls and there is nothing, that would make him go from victims of convenience to the victims that demand more afford to lure them in the first place.
The other possibility is, the killer knew her by sight or knew her ads, only the situation was random. Then, it was an accident to run in him and the murder was spontaneous, as if a dam suddenly breaks.
The point here, that bugs me more than the laptops are the cell phones. Someone tried to get Maureen's voice messages a year after her disappearance? Did I get that right? That would indicate, the killer kept cell phones as souvenir. Cells have quite some souvenir qualities because they hold pictures. And, due to the phone registers stored on them, they offer the killer a posthumous access to his victim's whole life.
There is a third option: As I said, it's maybe a silly idea, but what if the connection is really the client? Nowhere is written in stone, this client is from LI or has only sex in LI. But if, IF, IF ... old man wastes his money with prostitutes at $1000 rates, would that be a reason for a potential heir to snap? It would of course explain, why we have this pattern of all four going to a client, one returning from this client and get abducted later, but all four dropped in the same area and with the same signature. Because if the killer is connected to the client, he would stalk them from the time, they met with the client. However, there is a problem. LE didn't find the same client for all four victims. Which means, he exists and they just were not able to find him or he had other contacts and didn't need to go via Craigslist or at least not always. Which would indicate, some of our victims had mutual acquaintances.
However, how I turn and twist it, I don't see Craigslist as the only common denominator. And I want to take a look at the victimology again. They all looked different. Different sizes, different ages, different hair colors, different face shapes, ... all different. That would, if the killer is connected to one special client, mean, this client doesn't have a special type he finds attractive. Lets face it, the older men get, the less picky they become, but that effect is normally countered if the man has money. Because money allows the same kind of pickyness earlier in life is enabled by physical attraction. So, this speculative client spends $1000 or even more on prostitutes, that means, he has some money. Honestly, I can't bring that victimology together. Because if he would be just a guy liking his change, we would find also African-American or Asian under the victims. Unless of course there were, there is a second dump site and they weren't found yet.
So, there is something, we don't see yet in the mix. Other bodies, places in NYC and surroundings, social contacts of the victims. Something.
