Campus Alert Archive
BU

Simultaneous hoax active-shooter calls at opposite ends of campus; no threat found

AI-generated · every claim is source-linked
MAswattingemergency notificationhigh confidence
Compare →
Confirmed HoaxDetermined to be a hoax. The institutional response is documented because it reveals how the alert system performed under a perceived real threat.

On April 9, 2023, Boston University Police received two simultaneous calls reporting active shooters at opposite ends of campus: 855 Commonwealth Avenue (College of Fine Arts) and 233 Bay State Road (admissions office). BUPD issued a BU Alert at approximately 8:00 PM EDT and confirmed within 40 minutes there was no threat. Just six days after the Harvard Leverett swatting, BU became part of the rapid April 2023 wave.

Alerts
2
Response
—
Killed
0
Injured
0
Institution
Boston University
Private R1 · MA
All BU cases →
~37,000 studentsBU Alert
Official alert policy
Read when and how BU says it will use BU Alert: summarized, quoted, and analyzed.
Documented Timeline

Alert Sequence

2 messages in sequence · 2 verified verbatim

INITIAL ALERTTwitter/X
Verified verbatimBU Today (official) quoting the @BUPolice Twitter/X post verbatim218 chars
Two calls for an active shooter have been received by BU Police in the area of 855 Commonwealth Ave and 233 Bay State Road. Nothing has been discovered at this time, but there is a heavy police presence in these areas.
Posted on @BUPolice's official Twitter/X account around 8:00 PM EDT on April 9, 2023, the public-facing channel BU used in parallel with the BU Alert SMS
Notable that the alert says 'Nothing has been discovered at this time' rather than directing students to shelter in place; the language indicates police were still verifying the threat
Names both 855 Commonwealth Avenue (College of Fine Arts) and 233 Bay State Road (admissions office) as the reported shooter locations
The two-location framing forced BUPD to split resources during the initial response
The BU Alert went out around 8:00 PM EDT, shortly after the calls were received
ALL CLEARSMS
Verified verbatimBU Alert update issued just before 8:50 PM EDT, quoted in BU Today209 chars
A short time ago, BUPD received several calls for an active shooter situation at multiple locations. Although we are still investigating, at this time we are confident that there is no threat to our community.
BUPD issued this update just before 8:50 PM EDT, approximately 50 minutes after the initial alert
Note the careful language: 'we are confident that there is no threat' rather than a definitive 'all clear'; BU officials chose hedged language while investigation continued
The update came approximately 50 minutes after the initial alert
Message elements

How the first alert is built

To check this alert, Claude (an AI) read it in full 25 separate times, independently. Each read decided whether the message answers each of the six questions and gave a short reason. A final reviewer then weighed all 25 and wrote the plain-English verdict you see when you open a row. The score (for example 22/25) is how many reads agreed; the 25 individual reads are tucked underneath if you want to check them.

Two calls for an active shooter have been received by BU Police in the area of 855 Commonwealth Ave and 233 Bay State Road. Nothing has been discovered at this time, but there is a heavy police presence in these areas.

  • Sourcepresent25/25

    Final assessment

    Unanimous: it names BU Police as having received the calls, identifying the source.

    Who is sending the alert and who is responding. People act faster on a message from a clearly identifiable, credible sender, such as a named department, the police, or a branded alert system, than on an anonymous notice. A branded signature counts.

    See all 25 individual reads
    1. present: It names "BU Police" as having received the calls.
    2. present: It names "BU Police" as having received the calls.
    3. present: It names "BU Police" who received the calls.
    4. present: It names "BU Police", the responding police authority.
    5. present: It names "BU Police" as receiving the calls.
    6. present: It names "BU Police" who received the calls, identifying the responding authority.
    7. present: It names "BU Police", a responding authority.
    8. present: It names "BU Police" as the authority receiving the calls.
    9. present: "BU Police" is named as receiving the calls.
    10. present: It names "BU Police", the responding authority.
    11. present: It names "BU Police" as having received the calls.
    12. present: It names "BU Police" as having received the calls.
    13. present: It names "BU Police", the university police.
    14. present: It names "BU Police" receiving the calls, the responding authority.
    15. present: It names "BU Police" who received the calls.
    16. present: It names "BU Police" as having received the calls, identifying the authority.
    17. present: It names "BU Police", the responding authority.
    18. present: It names "BU Police" as the responding authority.
    19. present: It names "BU Police" as having received the calls.
    20. present: It names "BU Police" as receiving the calls.
    21. present: It names "BU Police" as receiving the calls, the responding authority.
    22. present: Names "BU Police" as having received the calls.
    23. present: Names "BU Police" as the responding authority.
    24. present: "BU Police" names the responding police authority.
    25. present: It names "BU Police" as receiving the calls.
  • Hazardpresent25/25

    Final assessment

    Unanimous: it names active shooter reports, a specific threat.

    What the threat actually is. A complete warning names the specific danger, such as a shooter, a fire, a tornado, or a gas leak, rather than a vague emergency, because people decide what to do based on what they are facing.

    See all 25 individual reads
    1. present: It names "an active shooter" reports, a specific threat.
    2. present: It names "an active shooter", a specific threat.
    3. present: It names "an active shooter", a specific threat.
    4. present: It names "an active shooter", a specific threat.
    5. present: It names "an active shooter", a specific threat reported.
    6. present: It names "an active shooter", a specific threat.
    7. present: It names "an active shooter", a specific threat (reported calls).
    8. present: It names "an active shooter", a specific threat.
    9. present: It names "an active shooter", a specific threat.
    10. present: It names "an active shooter", a specific threat reported.
    11. present: It names an "active shooter", a specific threat, reported in calls.
    12. present: It names "an active shooter", a specific threat.
    13. present: It names calls "for an active shooter", a specific threat.
    14. present: It names "an active shooter", a specific threat.
    15. present: It names "an active shooter" reported by callers, a specific threat.
    16. present: It names "an active shooter" reported in two calls, a specific threat.
    17. present: It names "an active shooter" reported, a specific threat.
    18. present: It names "an active shooter", a specific threat.
    19. present: It names "an active shooter", a specific threat.
    20. present: It names "an active shooter", a specific threat.
    21. present: It names "an active shooter" report, a specific threat.
    22. present: Names "an active shooter" report.
    23. present: Names "an active shooter", a specific threat being reported.
    24. present: It names "an active shooter" reported via two calls, a specific threat.
    25. present: It cites "an active shooter" report, a specific threat.
  • Locationpresent25/25

    Final assessment

    Unanimous: it names 855 Commonwealth Ave and 233 Bay State Road, a stated location.

    Where the threat is. Saying whether danger is in a specific building, a part of campus, or area-wide lets people judge their own proximity and choose a safe direction. Without a where, a warning is hard to act on precisely.

    See all 25 individual reads
    1. present: It names "855 Commonwealth Ave and 233 Bay State Road".
    2. present: It locates it "in the area of 855 Commonwealth Ave and 233 Bay State Road".
    3. present: It locates it "in the area of 855 Commonwealth Ave and 233 Bay State Road".
    4. present: It says "855 Commonwealth Ave and 233 Bay State Road".
    5. present: It locates it "in the area of 855 Commonwealth Ave and 233 Bay State Road".
    6. present: It specifies "855 Commonwealth Ave and 233 Bay State Road", locations.
    7. present: It locates it at "855 Commonwealth Ave and 233 Bay State Road", specific places.
    8. present: It gives "855 Commonwealth Ave and 233 Bay State Road".
    9. present: It locates it "in the area of 855 Commonwealth Ave and 233 Bay State Road".
    10. present: It locates it "in the area of 855 Commonwealth Ave and 233 Bay State Road".
    11. present: It specifies "855 Commonwealth Ave and 233 Bay State Road".
    12. present: It names "855 Commonwealth Ave and 233 Bay State Road".
    13. present: It locates it "in the area of 855 Commonwealth Ave and 233 Bay State Road".
    14. present: It names "855 Commonwealth Ave and 233 Bay State Road", specific places.
    15. present: It locates it "in the area of 855 Commonwealth Ave and 233 Bay State Road".
    16. present: It names "855 Commonwealth Ave and 233 Bay State Road", specific addresses.
    17. present: It says "855 Commonwealth Ave and 233 Bay State Road", specific places.
    18. present: It locates it "in the area of 855 Commonwealth Ave and 233 Bay State Road".
    19. present: It locates it "in the area of 855 Commonwealth Ave and 233 Bay State Road".
    20. present: It locates it "in the area of 855 Commonwealth Ave and 233 Bay State Road".
    21. present: It locates it "in the area of 855 Commonwealth Ave and 233 Bay State Road".
    22. present: Gives locations "855 Commonwealth Ave and 233 Bay State Road".
    23. present: Locates it "in the area of 855 Commonwealth Ave and 233 Bay State Road".
    24. present: It names "855 Commonwealth Ave and 233 Bay State Road", specific places.
    25. present: It locates it "in the area of 855 Commonwealth Ave and 233 Bay State Road".
  • Guidanceabsent0/25

    Final assessment

    Unanimous: it describes police presence but gives recipients no protective instruction, so guidance is absent.

    The protective action to take. A clear, specific instruction, such as shelter in place, evacuate, avoid the area, or run-hide-fight, drives faster and more correct protective behavior than describing the threat alone.

    See all 25 individual reads
    1. absent: It describes police presence but gives recipients no protective instruction.
    2. absent: It describes police presence but gives recipients no protective action.
    3. absent: It describes police presence but gives recipients no protective instruction.
    4. absent: No protective action is directed at recipients, only that police are present.
    5. absent: It describes police presence but gives recipients no protective instruction.
    6. absent: It describes police presence but gives recipients no protective action.
    7. absent: It describes police presence but gives recipients no protective action.
    8. absent: It describes police presence but gives recipients no protective action.
    9. absent: No protective action is directed at recipients; it only narrates the response.
    10. absent: It describes police presence but gives recipients no protective instruction.
    11. absent: It describes police presence but gives recipients no protective action.
    12. absent: No protective action is directed to recipients; it only notes police presence.
    13. absent: It describes police presence but gives recipients no protective action.
    14. absent: It describes police presence but gives recipients no protective-action instruction.
    15. absent: It describes police presence but gives recipients no protective instruction.
    16. absent: It describes police presence but gives recipients no protective action.
    17. absent: It describes police presence but gives no protective instruction to recipients.
    18. absent: It describes police presence but gives recipients no protective instruction.
    19. absent: It describes police presence but gives recipients no protective instruction.
    20. absent: It reports police presence but gives recipients no protective action.
    21. absent: It describes police presence but gives recipients no protective instruction.
    22. absent: Describes police presence but gives no protective action to recipients.
    23. absent: No protective action is instructed; it only describes the police response.
    24. absent: It describes police presence but gives recipients no protective action instruction.
    25. absent: It describes police presence but gives no protective instruction to recipients.
  • Timepresent25/25

    Final assessment

    Unanimous: the phrase at this time conveys current recency, so timing is present.

    When the message applies. A timestamp, the word now or immediately, or a phrase like until further notice tells the reader whether the danger is current and how quickly to act.

    See all 25 individual reads
    1. present: The phrase "at this time" conveys current recency.
    2. present: The phrase "at this time" conveys current recency.
    3. present: It says "at this time", a recency cue.
    4. present: It uses the recency phrase "at this time".
    5. present: The phrase "at this time" conveys recency.
    6. present: It says "at this time" and a "heavy police presence", recency cues.
    7. present: It conveys recency with "Nothing has been discovered at this time".
    8. present: It uses "at this time" as a recency cue.
    9. present: It says "at this time", a recency cue.
    10. present: It uses "at this time", a recency cue.
    11. present: It uses the recency cue "at this time".
    12. present: It says "at this time", a recency cue.
    13. present: It says "Nothing has been discovered at this time", a recency cue.
    14. present: It says "at this time", a recency cue.
    15. present: It says "at this time", a recency cue.
    16. present: It says "at this time", a recency cue.
    17. present: It says "at this time", a recency cue.
    18. present: It uses the recency phrase "at this time".
    19. present: The phrase "at this time" conveys recency.
    20. present: It says "at this time", a recency cue.
    21. present: It uses "at this time", a recency cue.
    22. present: Says "at this time", a recency cue.
    23. present: Says "at this time", a recency cue.
    24. present: "at this time" conveys recency, a time cue.
    25. present: It conveys recency with "Nothing has been discovered at this time".
  • Impactabsent4/25

    Final assessment

    Absent by a 21 to 4 majority; most reads stress the alert says nothing has been discovered, framing the active-shooter calls as unsubstantiated with no stated harm.

    What the hazard could do to the people in its path. Beyond naming the threat, a complete warning conveys its potential consequences or severity, such as that a tornado can level buildings or that a leak could be explosive, so recipients grasp how much danger they are in. Research on warning message content finds that a concrete impact statement helps people personalize their risk and act sooner.

    See all 25 individual reads
    1. absent: Reports calls for an active shooter but says nothing has been discovered, stating no confirmed harm.
    2. absent: Reports active shooter calls but states nothing has been discovered and no harm.
    3. absent: It reports calls for an active shooter but states nothing has been discovered, negating confirmed harm.
    4. present: It reports calls for an active shooter and a heavy police presence, implying a potential danger to people.
    5. absent: Reports active shooter calls but states nothing has been discovered, conveying no actual harm.
    6. absent: It reports active shooter calls but says nothing has been discovered, no stated harm.
    7. absent: Reports active shooter calls but says nothing was discovered, with no stated harm.
    8. absent: Reports active shooter calls but says nothing discovered, no stated harm.
    9. absent: Reports calls for an active shooter but states nothing was discovered, so no harm conveyed.
    10. absent: Reports active shooter calls but states nothing has been discovered, with no confirmed harm or danger.
    11. absent: Reports active shooter calls but says nothing has been discovered, with no stated harm or consequence.
    12. present: Reports active shooter calls and heavy police presence, implying a potential danger to people.
    13. absent: Reports active shooter calls but states nothing has been discovered and describes no confirmed harm.
    14. absent: Reports active shooter calls but states nothing has been discovered, no confirmed harm.
    15. absent: It reports calls for an active shooter but says nothing has been discovered, so no harm is conveyed.
    16. absent: Reports calls for an active shooter but states nothing has been discovered, no confirmed harm.
    17. present: References active shooter calls and a heavy police presence, implying danger to people.
    18. absent: Reports active shooter calls but says nothing has been discovered, so no confirmed harm conveyed.
    19. absent: It reports calls for an active shooter but states nothing has been discovered, so no confirmed harm or danger.
    20. absent: Reports calls for an active shooter but says nothing has been discovered, no stated harm or confirmed danger.
    21. absent: States nothing has been discovered for active shooter calls, with heavy police presence but no confirmed harm.
    22. absent: It reports calls for an active shooter but notes nothing has been discovered, stating no confirmed harm.
    23. present: Reports calls for an active shooter with heavy police presence, implying potential lethal danger.
    24. absent: Reports calls for an active shooter but says nothing was discovered, so no actual harm conveyed.
    25. absent: It reports calls for an active shooter but states nothing was discovered and gives no stated harm.

Systematic AI judgments with visible reasoning, not human-validated codings.

About this analysis
Context

Background

On the evening of April 9, 2023 (Easter Sunday) Boston University Police received two simultaneous calls reporting active shooters at opposite ends of the Charles River campus. One call reported a shooter at 855 Commonwealth Avenue, where the College of Fine Arts is located. The other reported a shooter at 233 Bay State Road, the admissions office. BUPD issued a BU Alert around 8:00 PM EDT and dispatched officers to both locations. Within 40 minutes, BU was confident there was no threat, and just before 8:50 PM EDT, the university issued an update with carefully hedged language: 'although we are still investigating, at this time we are confident that there is no threat to our community.' The incident was part of the April 4-9 wave that hit at least 10 universities (Clemson, the University of Florida, Boston University, Harvard, Cornell, the University of Pittsburgh, Rutgers, the University of Oklahoma, Wake Forest, and Middlebury) in a single week. About 50 minutes elapsed from the initial alert to the no-threat update. The two-location nature of the calls foreshadowed the tactic Purgatory swatters would use in August 2025, multiple coordinated calls designed to maximize police confusion.
Analysis

Key Findings

BU's two simultaneous calls at opposite ends of campus represented a more sophisticated swatting tactic than single-location hoaxes
BUPD confirmed no threat within about 40 minutes and issued its update approximately 50 minutes after the initial alert
BU used carefully hedged language ('we are confident there is no threat') rather than a definitive all-clear
The College of Fine Arts and admissions office are public-facing buildings on opposite ends of campus
The incident happened on Easter Sunday evening, when the campus population was reduced
Outcome
No injuries occurred. BUPD confirmed no active threat by 8:40 PM EDT and issued an all-clear update before 8:50 PM. The two simultaneous hoax calls at opposite ends of campus suggested deliberate effort to maximize police confusion. The incident was part of the April 4-9, 2023 swatting wave hitting at least 10 universities.
Provenance

Sources

  1. Official
    Making Sense of 'Swatting' Hoax That Hit BU Sunday Night (BU Today)
    bu.edu
    archived copy
  2. News
    Hoax shooting calls reported at Boston University (Boston.com)
    boston.com
    archived copy
  3. Student Paper
    BUPD responds to hoax shooting at spots on campus (Daily Free Press)
    dailyfreepress.com
    archived copy
  4. News
    Boston University swatted with call about 'active shooter' (Universal Hub)
    universalhub.com
    archived copy
  5. News
    Wave of swatting incidents has college students on edge (NBC Boston)
    nbcboston.com
    archived copy
Cite this case

Campus Alert Archive. "Boston University: Simultaneous hoax active-shooter calls at opposite ends of campus; no threat found." Incident of April 9, 2023. Added May 2026; last updated July 2026. https://campusalertarchive.com/case/boston-university-swatting-2023-04-09/

Download case JSON

Alert text quoted on this page remains the work of the issuing institution; the archive is a secondary source.

Tags
swattingboston-universitymassachusettsapril-2023-swatting-wavetwo-location-hoaxcommonwealth-avenuecollege-of-fine-artsprivate-r1easter-sundayfast-responseHoax
Added May 2026Updated July 2026Via ingestion