A chilling thread now connects two tragedies: police say they have identified a suspect in the fatal classroom shooting at Brown University—and that same person may be tied to the killing of an MIT professor days later. But here's where it gets controversial: agencies have offered mixed signals about a link, and federal prosecutors in Massachusetts appear to be preparing charges against someone they are actively seeking.
Sources familiar with the investigation, who spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss the probe publicly, confirmed the suspect’s identification but did not provide further specifics about how investigators reached that conclusion or precisely why they suspect a connection between the two incidents.
Federal prosecutors in Massachusetts have drafted charges in the case that involved the MIT professor, according to the same source. That development came as law enforcement converged Thursday evening on a storage facility in Salem, New Hampshire—about 20 miles (30 km) north of downtown Boston—where officers in SWAT gear and multiple police vehicles, including units from Providence and the Rhode Island State Police, were observed. The source said the Salem activity was tied to the ongoing investigation.
MANHUNT LEAVES STUDENTS, RESIDENTS 'RESTLESS AND EAGER'
The manhunt triggered by Saturday’s shooting inside a Brown University classroom has left students and local residents “restless and eager,” Mayor Brett Smiley said. Two Brown students were killed and at least eight others were wounded in the attack.
On Monday, MIT professor Nuno Loureiro, 47, was shot to death at his Brookline, Massachusetts, home. Brookline lies roughly 50 miles (80 km) north of Brown’s Providence campus. Loureiro was affiliated with MIT’s departments of nuclear science and engineering and physics, and he worked at the school’s Plasma Science and Fusion Center.
An FBI official had earlier indicated investigators did not believe the Brown shooting and Loureiro’s murder were connected, which fuels the current controversy: why are federal prosecutors drafting charges in Massachusetts if top federal agents had appeared to rule out a link? That discrepancy raises questions about whether different agencies are looking at the same evidence or simply reaching divergent conclusions from separate lines of inquiry.
And this is the part most people miss: investigators in Providence say the suspected shooter fled on foot into nearby streets after the classroom attack, which forced them to lean heavily on residential security camera footage—doorbell and neighborhood cameras—because the classroom building and much of the surrounding area lack fixed surveillance systems. That gap in institutional cameras significantly affected how the search was conducted and why police have relied on the public to help identify the person seen in released video clips.
Police have distributed images and video showing a masked individual who, based on survivor accounts, is believed to be the shooter. The footage captures the suspect walking through a nearby neighborhood both before and after the assault, including moments when police vehicles arrived with lights flashing. Providence Police Chief Oscar Perez said on Wednesday, “He could be anywhere,” noting that authorities initially lacked both a clear identity and a stated motive for the attack.
Investigators also circulated photographs of another unidentified man seen near the site, asking the public to help locate and speak with him as a potential witness who may have relevant information.
Authorities initially announced that they had a person in custody the day after the shooting, but that individual was later released when police determined he was not involved.
Controversial questions to consider: should different federal and local agencies coordinate public statements more tightly to avoid mixed messages? Does the lack of surveillance in campus buildings and surrounding neighborhoods create avoidable blind spots in public safety? Those looking for answers may disagree about the best balance between privacy, campus openness, and security.
We welcome your thoughts: do you agree that the apparent inconsistencies between agency statements matter, or is some level of public uncertainty unavoidable during an active investigation? Share your views below.
Reporting for this story was contributed by Svea Herbst-Bayliss in Providence, CJ Gunther in Salem, Nate Raymond and Brad Brooks, with additional reporting from Andrew Hay. Editing was done by Donna Bryson, David Gregorio and William Mallard. The information above is based on reporting by Reuters and on comments from officials and sources familiar with the investigation.
