This piece lays out what happened before and after the deadly December 13 shooting at Brown University, focusing on a longtime custodian’s repeated warnings about a man he saw acting suspiciously around the engineering building, how those reports were handled by campus security, and the grim aftermath that followed when the same man allegedly opened fire in Room 166.
Derek Lisi, a custodian with 15 years on the job, says he repeatedly saw a man he now recognizes as the suspect pacing hallways and peering into classrooms for weeks before the attack. He reports flagging the behavior to campus security on at least two separate occasions, convinced something was wrong. His observations centered on the Barus and Holley engineering building and, in particular, Room 166 where the shooting occurred.
“He’d been casing that place for weeks,” Lisi said in an interview with the Boston Globe. He detailed how the man would sometimes duck into bathrooms or walk away quickly when he noticed other people nearby. Lisi believed the man was trying to avoid anyone he thought might be a security presence.
When the man saw him, Lisi said, the man started walking away quickly and ducked into the bathroom. “I said, ‘Something’s off with this guy, so I gotta say something,’” he recalls. So he said he flagged down the same private security guard again. According to Lisi, the guard didn’t investigate.
Despite those warnings, the suspect is accused of opening fire in Room 166 on December 13, killing two students and wounding nine others. Two young lives were taken: 19-year-old Ella Cook and 18-year-old Mukhammad Aziz Umurzokov. The campus was left reeling and searching for answers about why repeated concerns did not stop a tragedy.
Lisi later recognized the suspect from released photos and videos by the man’s distinctive walk and clothing, and he immediately contacted authorities again to share what he had seen. “I told my friend, ‘I hope it’s not the guy I’ve been seeing. I hope it’s not,’” he told the outlet. After seeing images, his worry turned to certainty.
“I knew it was him because I could tell by the walk,” he said. “He had a pretty distinctive walk.” That sense of recognition is haunting. Lisi’s memory of the suspect’s cadence and behavior became a crucial lead once the suspect was publicly identified.
Questions now center on why campus security didn’t follow up more aggressively once Lisi reported the behavior. If cameras were down and personnel were not actively watching for suspicious patterns, both structural choices and personnel decisions come under scrutiny. Those gaps may have allowed a pattern of casing to go unchecked until the shooting took place.
Campus access policies also drew sharp criticism from Lisi, who described entry to the engineering building as a “free-for-all” where people could come and go without challenge. He believes lax access and inattentive security protocols contributed to the opportunity the alleged shooter exploited. Lisi said he regrets not being able to do more to stop what happened.
In the days after the campus shooting, another fatal attack at an off-campus residence heightened concerns about how the initial incident was handled and whether early intervention might have prevented further violence. For the families and the community, the sequence of events raises the painful question of how warning signs were missed. Those who work on campus are now insisting on answers about procedures and accountability.
Lisi says he’s not interested in any reward being offered to help solve the case; his motive has been simple and direct. “I just wish there was something I could have done,” Lisi told the Globe. That sentiment captures the frustration of an employee who believes he tried to do the right thing but saw no effective follow-up.
The facts as reported point to failures at multiple points: suspicious behavior observed repeatedly, an eyewitness who reported it, and an alleged shooter who carried out an attack in a place he had apparently been casing. For those who want safer campuses, this sequence should prompt urgent reviews of security staffing, camera systems, access controls, and the handling of tip reports by private and university security alike.
Community leaders, law enforcement, and university officials now face the task of preventing a repeat by fixing the weaknesses exposed by this case. That means acting on reports from experienced staff like custodians and making sure watchful employees are heard and followed up on. The families of the victims and the campus community deserve clear, concrete steps that restore trust and protect students and staff.
Add comment