In major crime investigations, effort is rarely the issue.
Everyone is already running hard. Investigations worked around the clock. Phones pinging nonstop. Coffee reheated one too many times.
What usually decides whether a case tightens up or starts to drift is speed. How fast verified information can be developed, shared, and acted upon. And once suspects and evidence cross jurisdictions, that clock doesn’t just tick louder. It starts to dominate every decision.
With that as the backdrop, take a look at what unfolded at Brown University.
By the time the first headlines hit, investigators were already behind the curve. Claudio Neves Valente moved quickly, faster than the system usually expects. Think about it, he purportedly traveled from Miami to Providence and opened fire on December 13, killing two students. While authorities were still trying to put a name to the shooter, he was already gone.
Two days later, he surfaced again in Massachusetts. Another shooting. Another victim, an MIT professor and former classmate, was killed in Brookline.
Today, we can say with confidence that it was Valente. Back then? It was likely a quiet conversation among investigators. Could this be the same guy? No one wanted to jump too fast, but no one could afford to be wrong.
What began in Rhode Island didn’t stay there. It spilled into Massachusetts, then New Hampshire, and eventually, Connecticut got involved once the state lab was asked to help.
Different agencies. Different authorities. One pressing question hanging over everything:
Are these events connected, or are we chasing separate ghosts?
That question matters. It drives where resources go. It determines which leads get attention and which ones wait. And it matters to the public, watching closely, trying to understand whether the danger has passed, or is still moving.
Unfortunately, this won’t be the last case like this. Ever since criminals learned they could move faster than jurisdictions, going all the way back to Bonnie and Clyde, cross-border crime has been part of the American story.
So what can we take from this one?
Lesson #1: Technology Matters, But Only If It’s Turned On
I wasn’t on scene, so I won’t pretend to know exactly what systems Brown University had or didn’t have. All I can go by are media reports, which described limited or poor camera coverage and access-control systems that either weren’t present or weren’t activated in key areas. It was hard for me not to ask the question: where were the gunshot and weapons detection technologies?
Then something important happened. A member of the public spoke up.
Once that tip came in, surrounding technology finally had something to work with. Paired with license plate reader data, the investigation’s center of gravity shifted. A rented vehicle was tracked across state lines. Movement turned into direction.
The same applies to rapid DNA analysis. It only matters if it’s used. Investigators were able to develop a DNA profile from cartridge casings recovered at Brown. It didn’t hit in CODIS, but it didn’t disappear either. When Valente was later found, that profile suddenly mattered.
Technology doesn’t solve cases on its own. But when it’s integrated into a community and ready when needed, it can change the trajectory of an investigation.
Lesson #2: A National Ballistic Program Matters
By the time the dust settled, ballistic evidence had touched at least three states. Add a fourth when the Connecticut State Police lab was asked to examine evidence tied to the New Hampshire scene.
That’s where national capability becomes decisive.
The recovered cartridge cases and test fires weren’t just examined in isolation. They were placed into a nationwide ballistic framework that allows evidence to be compared instantly, across agencies, across states, without waiting for phone calls or professional courtesy. It didn’t take long for the results to prove that the recovered guns from Valente were each involved with the Brown murders and the killing of the MIT professor.
That doesn’t happen by accident.
The National Integrated Ballistic Information Network (NIBIN) exists because crime doesn’t respect borders. It’s built on the assumption that shooters move, and that investigators need to move faster.
Because ballistic intelligence could be shared electronically and immediately, uncertainty can be dropped early and kept down. Without that backbone, the case would have relied on slower, manual coordination. Calls. Emails. Waiting.
And while investigators wait, stories fill the gap. Speculation grows. Confidence erodes.
The real value of a national ballistic program isn’t about producing a dramatic, movie-style “match.” It’s about giving investigators something solid to stand on.
It helps confirm, or rule out, connections. It helps leaders align resources with purpose. And it gives prosecutors evidence that holds up when the questions come hard.
Lesson #3: Never Take Crisis Communication for Granted
After violent incidents like this occur, an investigation alone isn’t enough.
Clear, timely communication matters almost as much as the work happening behind the scenes. People are scared. Rumors move faster than facts. Silence gets filled, whether leaders like it or not.
When agencies communicate what’s known, what’s still being worked on, and how partners are coordinating to protect the community, it steadies things. It builds trust at a moment when uncertainty can easily take over.
Good crisis communication comes prepared, doesn’t overshare, and doesn’t speculate. And it doesn’t promise what it can’t deliver.
What it does is acknowledge concern, highlight the disciplined work underway, and remind the community that safeguarding them isn’t passive, it’s active, coordinated, and constant.
The Takeaway
Violent crime will never slow down on its own. And investigations don’t get extra time just because the problem is complex.
Last week’s multi-jurisdictional case serves to remind us - AGAIN - that success in modern violent-crime investigations depends on three things: speed, coordination, and trust.
Trust in technologies and systems that work across borders. Trust in partners who can share information without hesitation. And trust earned through clear leadership and honest communication when it matters most.
The lesson isn’t just about what happened at Brown University.
It’s about what the next case will demand, and whether we’re ready when the clock starts ticking again.
Cross-jurisdictional TEAMWORK - policy-driven TACTICS - layers of leveraging TECHNOLOGY