A Vermont man was killed by a dog nicknamed ‘Jack’ after multiple police reports and public hearings from other people being bitten

A 76-year-old Vermont man is dead after a dog that had already been the subject of police reports, bite complaints, and a town hearing attacked him inside his own home, turning what had long been treated as a serious public safety concern into a fatal one. Reporting for MyNBC5, Jackson Stoever described a neighborhood in Essex that was stunned by the death, but not entirely surprised, because many people living nearby had already had frightening run-ins with the same dog.

A day later, WCAX reporter Claire Jones showed how the case is now doing more than rattling one street on Brigham Hill Road. It is also forcing town officials, police, and animal behavior experts to confront an uncomfortable question: if so many warnings came first, why did it still end this way?

That question hangs over every part of this story. Because this was not a case where a dog attacked out of nowhere and no one had any reason to expect danger. By both Stoever’s and Jones’ reporting, the dog – called “Jack” by its owner – had already bitten people, already scared neighbors, and already gone before the Essex Selectboard in February.

And still, a man died.

A Deadly Attack Inside The Home

According to Essex police, the victim was Stephen Campbell, 76, who lived at the Brigham Hill Road home where the attack happened. Stoever reported that police said Campbell died after being bitten by a large dog that also lived at the house, while Jones said the fatal attack happened just before 3:30 p.m. and that Campbell died from his injuries at the scene.

The dog, described in vaccination records as a large male pit bull breed, was later removed from the home with police assistance. Stoever reported that other family members were inside at the time, and that the dog’s owner was able to stop the attack and secure the animal.

That detail makes the case even harder to process. This was not some roadside mauling or a dog getting loose in a park. It happened inside the home, with family present, in a place where everyone presumably already knew the dog’s history better than anyone else.

And yet that history still was not enough to prevent the worst outcome.

Neighbors Say The Warning Signs Were There

One of the strongest parts of Stoever’s report was how plainly neighbors described the fear they already felt around the property. He said people living nearby told NBC5 they had multiple run-ins with the dogs at that house and had stopped walking by it because of their own close calls.

Stoever also noted the beware signs scattered around the property, and neighbors told him those signs were not a joke. In their telling, the dog had already made its reputation clear long before Tuesday’s fatal attack.

That matters because sometimes after a tragedy, people reconstruct danger in hindsight and say they “always knew” something bad could happen. But here, according to the reporting, there was nothing subtle or retrospective about it. The complaints had already been filed. The bites had already been reported. The issue had already been escalated to town officials.

So when neighbors said they were shocked but not surprised, that was not a contradiction. It was probably the most honest description possible.

A death like this still shocks a community, even when the community has been warning about the risk all along.

Multiple Bites Led To Police Reports And A Public Hearing

Stoever reported that multiple police reports had been filed with Essex police since January, with victims saying they were bitten by this same dog. One of the most prominent cases involved Joseph Haddock, who testified during the February Selectboard hearing after being attacked while delivering Meals on Wheels to the house.

In footage from that hearing played in the NBC5 report, Haddock described how the dog came through and grabbed his right forearm, knocked him to the ground in the snow, and then bit the back of his left thigh as he tried to get up.

That was not a minor nip. It was the kind of testimony that, by itself, should make anyone understand this was not a dog with a slight behavioral issue or a one-time warning bark gone wrong. This was a serious bite with multiple points of contact and a victim who, in the words of a Selectboard member during the hearing, was asked whether he had feared for his life if no one had intervened.

Later, WCAX’s Claire Jones added another critical detail. She reported that Essex Police Chief Ron Hoague said officers had been called to the home before over bites and that the January delivery-driver attack had already been treated as a major event inside town government.

Jones also quoted Essex Town Manager Greg Duggan, who explained that because the earlier attack happened on the property where the dog lived, it was handled as a “potentially vicious dog” hearing. That wording, he said, was a nuance of the town ordinance, but it turned out to be a crucial one.

The Town Could Restrict The Dog – But Not Order It Put Down

The distinction between “potentially vicious” and something more serious may now become the central issue in Essex.

According to both reports, the Selectboard did act after the February hearing. Stoever said the dog’s owner, Jana Campbell, was ordered to keep Jack leashed at all times outside and to use a muzzle when the dog was off the property. Jones added that the town also required confinement when guests came to the home and ordered training.

At the hearing, Jana Campbell said she believed Jack was being protective of the household and that she would take the precautions needed to make sure nothing like that happened again.

And according to Chief Hoague, those precautions appeared to be in progress. Jones reported that he said officers conducted follow-ups and that, as far as they knew, everything ordered by the Selectboard was being worked on.

That is what makes the case feel so grimly instructive. The system did not ignore the dog. Officials did not shrug and walk away. There were conditions, restrictions, and follow-up checks.

But as Duggan told WCAX, the board may have wanted to do more than the ordinance allowed. He said board members had already been asking how they would handle it if something happened again.

Now something has.

Experts Say The Dog Was Already Beyond “Potentially Vicious”

Jones also interviewed Emily Lewis, a certified dog behavior consultant who specializes in aggressive behavior and was called to the scene to help police and animal control take Jack into custody.

Her assessment was blunt. According to Jones, Lewis said the bite that came before the Selectboard earlier this year was a level five bite, which she described as the most severe. And then she said the part that now sounds like an indictment not just of the dog, but of the legal framework around it: “This dog was not potentially vicious and dangerous. This dog was absolutely dangerous.”

That is a devastating line in the context of everything that followed.

Lewis went even further, telling WCAX that she believes stricter rules are needed not only at the town level but more broadly, and that there is a “systemic failing” here. That phrase matters because it shifts the focus away from one owner or one officer and toward a larger structure that may not be built to act quickly enough when a dangerous dog’s worst behavior happens on its home property.

That kind of nuance may make sense in ordinance language. It makes a lot less sense to grieving neighbors and families after a fatal attack.

A Death That May Change The Town’s Rules

Both reporters made clear that this is still an active investigation, but the broad outline of what comes next is already becoming visible.

Stoever reported that police said the dog’s owner voluntarily surrendered the animal to the town animal control officer and that the dog was scheduled to be euthanized at the Chittenden Humane Society. Jones later reported that police had ordered the euthanasia and that the case is expected to become a major topic at the upcoming Essex Selectboard meeting.

That is where the second half of this story begins.

Because this is no longer just about one dog called Jack and one terrible afternoon on Brigham Hill Road. It is now about whether Essex’s rules gave officials enough power to act when a dog had already bitten, already terrified residents, already seriously injured a delivery worker, and still remained alive under conditions that were supposed to protect the public.

Town officials now seem to be signaling that the answer may be no.

Chief Hoague told WCAX that occasional dog bites are common, but that a death like this is not something the town is used to. That is true enough. Fatal dog attacks remain rare, which is exactly why prior warning signs become so important when they do happen.

This case appears likely to force Essex to decide whether its current standard gives too much benefit of the doubt in cases where the danger already seems obvious.

The Hardest Part Of This Story Is That It Did Not Come Out Of Nowhere

The most haunting thing about the death of Stephen Campbell is that it was not random in the sense people often mean when they say something came “out of nowhere.” There were complaints. There were police calls. There was testimony. There were restrictions. There were experts now saying the danger was already severe.

And then a man still died.

That is what gives the story its real weight. Not just the brutality of the final attack, but the sense that the town was already living in the shadow of this possibility and still could not stop it.

Jackson Stoever’s reporting captured the mood of the neighborhood: people were shocked, but not surprised. Claire Jones’ reporting captured the institutional side of the same reality: even officials appear to be admitting the ordinance may not have given them enough room to act more aggressively when they first had the chance.

Taken together, the two reports paint a picture that is hard to shake. A dangerous dog was known, discussed, regulated, and still left in place long enough to kill. And now, after all the warnings, Essex is left not only with a dead resident but with a question that towns everywhere dread hearing after a preventable tragedy:

Why did it take a death for the rules to suddenly look too weak?