A chilling question now hangs over two New England communities: could the same person be behind both the Brown University shooting and the killing of an MIT professor just days later? That possibility—and the unanswered details around both attacks—has left many stunned and searching for clarity. But here's where it gets controversial: investigators initially said there was no link, and then shifted their focus to explore one. And this is the part most people miss—this investigation is evolving fast, and much of what officials are looking at is not yet public.
What changed in the probe
Authorities told reporters on Thursday that the inquiry into the mass shooting at Brown University broadened when investigators began looking for a connection to a separate slaying that occurred two days later in a Boston suburb. The Brown attack happened on Saturday, when a shooter entered an engineering building on campus and opened fire, killing two students and wounding nine others. About 50 miles (80 kilometers) away, on Monday night an MIT professor was found fatally shot in his home in Brookline.
Officials have been cautious about releasing details. Three people who were briefed on the probe but not authorized to speak publicly confirmed to reporters that investigators are now pursuing a possible link. Two of those sources said a person of interest has been identified and that investigators are actively trying to locate that individual. "Person of interest" is a law-enforcement term that typically means someone agents believe may have information about a crime or who might be connected to it—but it is not the same as naming a suspect or making an arrest.
It’s worth adding that the FBI earlier had said it knew of no connections between the Brown and Brookline incidents, which underscores how quickly the picture can shift as investigators uncover new leads.
Where the Brown investigation stands
Nearly a week after the campus shooting, investigators are still struggling to identify and arrest whoever carried out the attack. That delay has caused frustration in Providence, where people are angry that a person could walk off campus after killing students and that no clear image of the shooter’s face has been released.
Police have released several snippets of security video that show an individual they believe may be responsible. The footage captures the person standing, walking and running in nearby streets, but in every clip the face is either turned away or covered. Investigators have said the wing of the engineering building where the shooting took place has few—if any—security cameras, and they think the shooter entered and exited through a door facing a residential street that borders the campus. Because the building sits on the campus edge, some campus cameras that cover central areas did not record the person.
To put the timeline in perspective: in some high-profile cases, law enforcement can take several days or longer to make an arrest. For example, a brazen outdoor killing in New York last year took five days before police apprehended a suspect. That doesn’t make the wait easier for families and a community in the immediate aftermath, but it does illustrate why investigations sometimes take time as officers gather evidence and verify leads.
Who was the MIT professor and what do we know about his death?
The victim in Brookline was 47-year-old Nuno F.G. Loureiro, a married physicist who joined MIT in 2016. In 2024 he was appointed director of MIT’s Plasma Science and Fusion Center, a major laboratory that focuses on research into plasma physics and fusion energy—fields tied to long-term efforts to develop cleaner, large-scale energy sources. When he became head of the center, more than 250 people were working across seven buildings on the lab’s projects. Loureiro was also a professor in MIT’s physics and nuclear science and engineering departments.
Authorities so far have offered no public explanation for why Loureiro was killed, and they said no suspect is in custody.
Why Brown, that building and that classroom were targeted
That remains unclear. Police have publicly said they believe Brown was targeted and that video images indicate the masked person had been surveying the engineering building, suggesting premeditation. Still, no group or individual has claimed responsibility, and investigators had not identified a suspect when they spoke to reporters Thursday.
The shooting happened in the older portion of Brown’s engineering building during a finals study session for a "Principles of Economics" class—a course that typically draws hundreds of students each semester. But authorities are still trying to determine exactly how many people were in the classroom at the time. Because classes and study sessions vary in size, and because students may have been scattered throughout the room or building, officials are conducting detailed interviews to piece together the scene.
Who was wounded and who died
Police say two students were killed and nine others were hurt when the shooter entered a first-floor classroom and opened fire. The two who were killed were 19-year-old sophomore Ella Cook and 18-year-old freshman MukhammadAziz Umurzokov.
Ella Cook, who was 19, took part in her Alabama church community and served as vice president of the Brown College Republicans. Her funeral is scheduled for Monday. MukhammadAziz Umurzokov came to the United States with his family from Uzbekistan when he was a child; he was 18 and had hopes of becoming a doctor.
Of the nine wounded, six were reported in stable condition as of Thursday and three had been released from the hospital.
Why security footage didn’t give a clear face image
Investigators have pointed to several reasons the person’s face was not captured clearly: the building’s older wing had limited camera coverage, the shooter likely used an exterior door that is not well-monitored, and the footage that has been released shows the person’s face turned away or covered. All of those factors make identification harder. Investigators typically rely on a range of tools—additional video from surrounding neighborhoods, witness accounts, forensics, and tips from the public—to fill gaps when surveillance footage is incomplete.
And this is the part most people miss: even when video doesn’t show a face, investigators can often use other evidence—phone records, vehicle sightings, purchase histories, and behavioral patterns—to build a case that points to a person of interest.
What officials are saying about timing and public communications
Some in Providence have criticized law enforcement for the lack of an immediate arrest and for not releasing a clear image of the attacker. Officials counter that they are sharing what they can while protecting the integrity of an active investigation. That tension—between public demand for answers and investigators’ need to preserve leads—is a familiar one in high-profile cases.
The broader context and why this is raising questions
Controversial point: the decision to publicize limited surveillance footage but not a clear suspect photo may inflame public frustration and fuel speculation. Should authorities be more transparent early on, or does doing so risk compromising an investigation? That is a legitimate debate, and people will likely disagree.
Another debate likely to surface: campus security at universities with older buildings and fewer cameras. Some will argue that institutions must modernize surveillance and access control, while others will point out the trade-offs—privacy, cost, and the imperfect nature of cameras in stopping all crimes.
How to follow further updates
The picture remains fluid. AP is continuing to report on developments and is sharing updates through its channels, including a WhatsApp feed for frequent briefings.
Who contributed reporting
This account draws on reporting from AP writers around the country, including Kimberlee Kruesi, Amanda Swinhart, Robert F. Bukaty, Matt O’Brien and Jennifer McDermott in Providence; Michael Casey in Boston; Heather Hollingsworth in Mission, Kansas; Kathy McCormack and Holly Ramer in Concord, New Hampshire; Christopher Weber in Los Angeles; and Alanna Durkin Richer, Mike Balsamo and Eric Tucker in Washington. Reporter Whittle filed from Portland, Maine.
Questions for readers
What do you think—should investigators publish more footage and information early in an inquiry to ease public anxiety, or does restraint better protect the chance of making the right arrest? Do universities need to rethink security in older buildings? Share your thoughts and disagreements below.
