The father of a man who was shot and killed by an off-duty police officer wants more transparency into the state’s investigation of the fatal encounter, according to a letter he wrote to Attorney General John Formella.
The attorney general’s office is investigating Jack Hutchings’s death as a homicide during a dispute between neighbors — and whether it occurred in self-defense — after Peterborough Police Officer Douglas MacPherson shot and killed him on July 5.
In the letter sent Oct. 15, Brian Hutchings raised questions about transparency given contradictory statements about the status of the investigation into his son’s death from the state and the Peterborough Police Department, as previously reported by the Ledger-Transcript.
“We believe that our family and the public deserve a fuller accounting of what happened and why these two inconsistent announcements were made,” Hutchings wrote.
He asked the attorney general’s office and New Hampshire State Police to make information about the investigation’s timeline and communications with the Peterborough Police Department public, and to further explain why the investigation isn’t considered a police-involved shooting.
Without explanation, the attorney general’s office has yet to publicly identify MacPherson as the shooter.
MacPherson returned to the force Sept. 21 after clearing a psychological evaluation in accordance with the department’s use-of-force policy, according to Peterborough Police Chief Scott Guinard, who said the attorney general’s office had told him the investigation was completed.
The attorney general’s office maintains that the investigation is ongoing. The Ledger-Transcript requested records of any formal notification to the Peterborough Police Department that the investigation had been completed, and the office said no such record exists.
MacPherson remained on the force as of Oct. 20, Guinard confirmed. He was certified as a police officer in August 2025, according to state records.
Members of the Peterborough Select Board, which oversees the police department, did not respond to requests for comment.
Hutchings requested answers on who on the state’s staff communicated with the Peterborough Police Department about the investigation, who told Guinard the investigation was completed, and whether the attorney general’s office is investigating this information. If the office finds no one at the state level communicated with the department, he asked whether the state will investigate the department’s decision to reinstate MacPherson.
“We deserve to know whether the Attorney General’s office or the New Hampshire State Police communicated with the Peterborough Police Department about an ongoing investigation, which would be highly inappropriate,” Hutchings wrote to Formella. “To believe Chief Guinard, one must infer that your agency reached its decision about the investigation’s outcome even while it was ongoing and that someone at the state level tipped the chief off about the investigation’s direction. [sic]”
The letter follows the family’s request earlier this month for an independent review of the state’s investigation. Former New Hampshire attorney general Michael Delaney, who is representing the family, labeled the state’s investigation into Jack’s death “unusual.”
Delaney argued there should be two investigations: a homicide investigation into whether Jack was “legally killed” and whether MacPherson discharged his weapon properly. The attorney general’s office, under Formella, disagrees.
“We do not speak on behalf of the Peterborough Police Department, nor would we characterize any statements or decisions made by Peterborough Police,” Michael Garrity, director of communications for the attorney general’s office, said in response to the letter.
While the state considers the matter a homicide investigation between two neighbors, Hutchings restated concerns raised by Delaney that it should be treated as an officer-involved shooting.
The attorney general’s office has said that because MacPherson was not on duty at the time, it’s not considered an officer-involved shooting, and the office is not looking into MacPherson’s use of his weapon.
The office has stated, “The fact that the person who caused a death is an off-duty police officer does not, by itself, change the nature of this case or mean some second investigation is required.”
Instead, the attorney general’s office and the New Hampshire State Police Major Crime Unit are investigating whether the shooting was justified under New Hampshire’s “stand your ground” law, which allows the use of deadly force in a life-threatening situation and removes any responsibility to retreat from attack when it’s safe to do so. MacPherson suffered “apparent stab/incised wounds,” authorities said back in July.
In the letter, Hutchings said the state is using an outdated Law Enforcement Officer Deadly Force Investigation Protocol from 2020 instead of the updated 2024 version. He writes that the 2024 protocol does not explicitly distinguish between on-duty and off-duty officers, and the investigation should reflect that.
Neither the 2020 nor the 2024 protocol distinguishes between on-duty and off-duty officers. Instead, they refer more broadly to “law enforcement officers.”
Both protocols state in the memorandum that the protocol “applies to any situation involving a law enforcement officer’s use of force which results in death or serious bodily injury to any person.”
Each protocol also states in the first sentence: “State law entrusts law enforcement officers with special authority.” Hutchings argues this means the protocol should apply to on-duty and off-duty police.
“If an officer who is ‘off the clock’ confronts a violent situation, the public expects them to use their unique training and authority to address it,” Hutchings wrote. “If the purpose of the protocol is, as it says, to foster the public’s confidence, then your office should apply it broadly rather than look for reasons to avoid it.”
When asked to explain the 2024 protocol, Garrity referred to previous statements and said: “We disagree with the letter’s framing.”