Gun Used in Brown Mass Shooting Linked to MIT Professor’s Murder, Raising Security Concerns
In a harrowing development, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) disclosed that the same firearm involved in the tragic mass shooting at Brown University was also used in the subsequent murder of an MIT professor. The perpetrator, Claudio Manuel Neves Valente, a former Brown physics student, left a deadly path across multiple states before ultimately taking his own life. This disturbing revelation has ignited scrutiny over security failures within educational institutions.
On December 13, 2025, the shooting at Brown claimed the lives of two students—Ella Cook and Mukhammad Aziz Umurzokov—while injuring nine others. Two days later, MIT professor Nuno F.G. Loureiro was found dead in his home, shot with the same weapon used in the earlier attack. U.S. Attorney Leah Foley confirmed the link, stating, “We’re 100% confident the same firearm was used in both killings.” This connection raises serious questions about how a shooting on one campus could lead to another murder just days later.
Despite these grim facts, Brown University President Christina Paxson dismissed criticism aimed at the school’s security infrastructure. In response to worries about a lack of surveillance cameras in the Barus & Holley building, she asserted, “Cameras wouldn’t have made a difference.” However, this stance has faced mounting skepticism as investigators reveal that Valente escaped the university undetected just minutes after committing the shooting. Unmonitored access points to the building made it alarmingly easy for him to flee.
Attorney General Peter Neronha elaborated on the concerns surrounding Valente’s movements. “Why Brown? I think that is a mystery,” he remarked, underlining the arbitrary nature of the shooting. It became evident that Valente was able to walk in and out without resistance, raising alarm bells about the adequacy of security measures in place.
Valente’s ties to Brown were minimal; he had been a graduate student there more than two decades ago. This lack of a current affiliation meant he could evade ID checks, and the older building provided limited oversight. MIT’s Loureiro had personal connections with Valente from their time studying together in Portugal, making his murder potentially premeditated. However, the students at Brown were strangers to him, further compounding the random violence of the attack.
The investigation into Valente’s actions highlighted critical lapses in security protocols. Surveillance footage that could have aided the early identification of the suspect was scarce, with much of it coming from external sources rather than inside the campus. A key tip from an individual who spotted Valente loitering prior to the shooting turned the tide of the investigation. “A person who saw a photo of the suspect blew this case right open,” stated Attorney General Neronha, emphasizing the reliance on public observation rather than institutional security.
As the aftermath of these shootings unfolded, fear gripped the surrounding communities. Law enforcement from various levels mobilized for the manhunt, resulting in shelter-in-place orders and disrupted academic schedules. Mayor Brett Smiley of Providence recognized the gravity of the situation when he said, “This was a breach. Our city came together, but we shouldn’t have had to the way we did.”
Paxson’s defense of the university’s security measures has sparked discontent among faculty and the public. Despite acknowledging that Valente acted alone, authorities noted his meticulous planning. He used burner phones, anonymous SIM cards, and fake identities, illustrating a clear intent to carry out violence without detection. The lack of monitoring systems within the university’s facilities points to fundamental issues in proactive security measures.
This tragedy has ignited a broader conversation about safety protocols on campus. It raises unsettling questions about how a man with no significant criminal history was able to cross state lines, acquire firearms, and evade detection for such a prolonged period. The implications for policy and institutional accountability are profound, and the collective response from both public and university entities will be scrutinized moving forward.
In sum, the chilling reality that one individual could wreak havoc across multiple locations, killing innocent students and professors, serves as a troubling reminder of the gaps in security that remain. As Neronha stated, “When someone can come in, do this, and disappear? That’s a problem.” The imperative to reassess safety measures has never been clearer.
"*" indicates required fields
