I guess I have to stop saying "I'm new here" when I disagree with a longtime poster, and I know Gitana is a very thoughtful and knowledgeable websleuther. But I don't see Ted Bundy as a valid comparison.
I've studied Bundy (and other serial murderers) extensively - I can probably quote Bob Keppel verbatim in many instances. Bundy is one of the most unique and successful serial criminals in the west, although to be fair, the proliferation of cameras and advances in forensic science would make it much harder for him to have his murderous career today. That notwithstanding, not only was Bundy highly organized but he was able to persuade adult victims to come with him, and then render them unconscious and spirit them off to kill sites, and conceal their remains for months if not years. And of course, he was a dedicated prowler, a peeper (as Gitana noted), and a B&E man (q.v. the Linda Healy case in 1974, still one of the more audacious abduction murders ever perpetrated.) Not to mention a necrophiliac. There is only one police interview where he was ever at a disadvantage - the Pensacola arrest in '78, when he was totally exhausted. Otherwise, he was confident, cocky, and he usually played with LE in his interviews. Gaeta, by contrast, is a boy who was quickly reduced to tears, and one who was fairly easily persuaded to admit his guilt.
I think Occam's razor applies in this case - at least at this time, with the evidence we have, Gaeta is just a teenager who acted impulsively, killed to prevent his victim from talking, and then did an ineffectual job disposing of the body and the evidence that connected him to the crime. By contrast, Bundy's earliest suspected crimes have never even been definitely linked to him, and of course he never admitted to them - unlike Gaeta, who has already confessed.
