This Is Harry. Remember His Face, Massey, You Bastards.
There is so much evidence, from so many sources and so many angles, of the horrors these bastards - "Dr" Steffi Maja Jalava, "Dr" Anita Shea and co. - at Massey's vastly inaptly-named Companion Animal "Hospital" committed upon this poor, sweet little dog (and that they could be committing upon YOUR dog, too, fellow pet owner) that there's no longer enough space for it all on The Customer & The Constituent's front page.
So - from now on - you'll find this running and regularly updated compilation of updates and developments here, atop the full series of articles that, collectively, convey the whole story of this perfectly viable but very vulnerable, innocent, full-of-character-and-love little papillon who was literally and intentionally tortured instead of treated, and used as a living teaching aid and student film prop . . . before being presented back to his horrified owner after 15 hours of repeated overdosing with an intended-to-be-fatal cocktail of sedatives to support a false diagnosis and a demand that he be immediately "euthanased".
The coverage also features the collusion between the "leadership" of the Veterinary Council of New Zealand (with its CEO, Iain McLachlan under investigation by the Law Society) and Massey's "Dean" of the Veterinary "School", Jon Huxley, as the Council continues to abuse its mandated obligation to hold the associated veterinary staff accountable.
THE COMPLETE AND CONTINUING COMPILATION FOR YOUR CONVENIENCE:
In the same continuing antics and information-release evasions as have been her demonstrated specialty for the past six months, Jodie Banner drops a second extension notice at 5.04 PM on a Friday — four minutes after her first one expired — pushing the release of this core information (most of which I've been trying to get out of Massey since January) out to August 7 because further "consultations" are required at her end.
But the information is the information. It either exists or it doesn't. So what's Massey up to now? Are Huxley, Banner and co. scanning the international horizon for hired-gun veterinary experts to retrofit a justification into Harry's clinical record for what was done to him, including the discontinuation of the very basic treatment for which he was admitted and for which they charged me in full and for aggressively coercing me under false pretences to allow them to kill him?
Are they strategising with Buddle Findlay to mastermind a way around the fact that - apart from the ethics and clinical atrocities of using my dog in the state into which they had intentionally chemically engineered him for extensive and invasive student and video production activities - they have no documentation to support any authority to do so? (Certainly, they not only did NOT have mine, as Harry's owner, they had the reverse i.e. I had REPEATEDLY communicated that Harry must NEVER be used as a student training tool.)
And perhaps they've now hired PR spin doctors additional to their in-house comms team and need further time to consult with this additional type of hired gun, too?
I mean, Banner . . . just pull the damn information out of the files and send it to me. But you can't, can you? It's too damning, and if you gave me the truth to publish, it would be utterly explosive - and would send your pet-owner clients running for the hills. Those that aren't already, if they've been following the
coverage of your atrocities in this publication.
In addition to this advisory article to vets, the Principals and Directors of 26 individual veterinary practices across the lower North Island were sent an alert letter directly. The text of this letter and the list of its recipients are published at the bottom of the article.
The article itself serves as an advisory to veterinary clinics around New Zealand, regarding the risks associated with admitting companion animals to the Massey University Companion Animal Hospital Intensive Care Unit (ICU) for overnight or extended stays.
It outlines specific vulnerabilities in patient care, drug administrations, covert, owner-unauthorised invasive, hands-on utilisation of pets for student teaching activities, and - for referring vets, specifically - it details the downstream legal and insurance liabilities for the primary veterinary practices that refer clients to this facility . . . urging the exercise of due care in choosing to do so.
On July 3, 2026, eight members of the Massey University Council were sent, by tracked courier to their external corporate addresses, a formal brief documenting the gross clinical, legal and ethical failures that form the subject of this publication's ongoing investigation into the abuse, torture and killing of Harry Kelly at Massey University's Companion Animal Hospital on December 1, 2025.
This article documents who was served, where, and what their personal fiduciary obligations now require of them under the Education and Training Act 2020 and the Crown Entities Act 2004. Plausible deniability — any claim of "we didn't know" — is no longer available to these eight individuals that hold peak responsibility for the governance of the University. They were directly and personally served. They know. The question that now attaches to each of them individually is: What did they do about it? (Aside from possibly heartily congratulating Legal and Governance Director Jodie Banner for her stellar performance in managing to dodge, dishonestly re-frame, or completely ignore Official Information Act and Privacy Act requests for the release of information.)
Each of the eight named Council members has now had sufficient information, for long enough, that continued inaction starts to cross from wilful blindness into direct complicity.
Standing guard for Veterinary Council of New Zealand Chief Executive Iain McLachlan (who clearly wants no more of his evasive, disingenuous emails published since he's already under investigation by the Law Society), VCNZ Deputy Registrar Liam Shields' July 6 response to my three June 8 questions was, in fact, a non-response.
My questions were designed to bring forth either the name of the veterinarian on duty between midnight on November 30 and the December 1 2025 day shift i.e. who would have greenlighted the catastrophic, repeated, contraindicated sedative overdosing of Harry Kelly and the later possibly intended-to-be-fatal disconnection of Harry's rehydration fluids while in the collapsed state into which he had been chemically engineered. Alternatively, my questions were designed to expose whether, in fact, Massey ran that shift, and therefore regularly runs its overnight "Intensive Care Unit", without any licensed veterinarian whatsoever . . . leaving ICU staff to do as they please with clients' pets.
Shields indicated a refusal to answer this question, or indeed my other two questions that were equally designed, frankly, to corner him into a confession of what my now nearly 70 detailed, evidence-replete articles have already demonstrated i.e. that Harry was abused, tortured and prepared by night shift for "Dr" Steffi Jalava's and "Dr" Anita Shea's utilisation in their extensive and invasive, and certainly owner-unauthorised, student "teaching" and video production activities the following day.
Shields's refusal tells the reader all they need to know about what goes on behind those ICU doors in the name of "care" and "teaching" . . . and also the extent to which the management of this "regulatory industry watchdog" will compromise themselves to protect those to whom they appear beholden in the name of collegial bro-ship.
Massey's Director of Legal and Governance, Jodie Banner, has made something of a signature art form of evading, re-framing, ignoring, or simply not responding to Official Information Act and Privacy Act requests.
This article documents her refusal to respond to an OIA request regarding the legal fees Massey has spent — and continues to spend — on external legal counsel in its attempts to contain the fall-out from what was done to Harry Kelly. Or more accurately put, this time being caught having abused, tortured and engineered the killing of a private client's pet. Or even more accurately put, having been caught by the wrong person . . . one with the capability and the platform to expose what actually goes on at the institution's Veterinary 'Teaching Hospital' aka Companion Animal 'Hospital'.
Since Banner elected not to answer, an AI model was asked to estimate what Massey's legal fees are likely to have been to date, based on the documented scope of Massey's external legal service providers' involvement — including the regular and intensive monitoring of this publication's articles. The results are illuminating.
DECEIVED OR PART OF THE DECEPTION? Massey Vet Student Environment Unfit for Purpose
This article details an environment within Massey University’s Veterinary "Teaching Hospital" that has structurally decayed far below acceptable international training and ethical standards.
It exposes a profound ethical and educational contradiction at the core of Massey University’s clinical training environment. The evidence details a critical binary: either veterinary students were falsely told that a client's pet was undergoing a severe, terminal neurological decline to justify (for the purposes of student instruction and video productions) endangering its life by disconnecting it from the rehydration treatment that was the true, sole purpose for its admission, OR they were active participants in exploiting a dog that was simply heavily sedated to fit an ad-hoc instructional narrative.
This raises the immediate, damaging question of whether students are being systematically mis-educated based purely on whatever client's pet happens to be available in the ward on any given day OR whether the covert, unauthorised utilisation of private, fee-paying clients’ pets is normalised as part of their education.
This article has been specifically brought to the attention of the three international agencies accrediting Massey's veterinary facility i.e. the American Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA), the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons, UK (RCVS) and the Australasian Veterinary Boards Council (AVBC). For an international accrediting agency, this represents the ultimate failure of an educational institution. Training future veterinarians under a model where clinical realities and patient statuses are manipulated or fabricated for logistical training convenience completely undermines the validity of the curriculum.
These agencies are wilfully continuing to accredit an institution that models deceptive and deeply unethical practices to its student body and are directly compromised in failing to protect the global veterinary standards they are professionally and institutionally mandated to uphold.
My June 18 international courier despatch of briefing packages to the Directors / Chairpersons of the three international agencies rubber-stamping Massey's veterinary "teaching" facility with their respective "accreditations" (intended to by-pass the managerial stonewalling and alert these accreditors' directors to their legal, directorial liability obligations) appeared to have set off panic among the pigeons.
In his first email since his January 30 threat to set his legal big guns (Buddle Findlay) upon me, Dean Jon Huxley suddenly decided he would respond to my June 11 "23 Questions" email . . . by not responding to any of my questions, in fact, but instead issuing another brief, terse, possibly intended-to-be-scary, "wholly unfounded" claim (without any inclusion of what it is that I've now covered in my nearly 70 evidence-replete articles that is unfounded) and another "shut up" order.
I'm guessing his little missive was a response to a prompt from the management of one or all three of the accreditation agencies, since the heads thereof were now in the position of having to pass on the courier packs I addressed for the Personal attention of their Directors.
AVBC, AVMA & RCVS DIRECTORS: Is It OK With You That Pet Owners Can No Longer Trust the Veterinary 'Profession'?
On June 18, 2026, nine individually addressed registered letters were dispatched by international courier from Masterton, New Zealand, to Directors of the three international bodies holding Massey University's veterinary accreditation — the Australasian Veterinary Boards Council (AVBC), the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons (RCVS, UK), and the American Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA).
It was a calculated strategy to break through the solid wall of collegial stone erected by the management of these rubber stamping agencies, and remind the Directors of each of their directorial obligations . . . that override, legally, their collegial loyalties.
Each letter places its named recipient on formal personal notice of the Harry Kelly Case — the forensic investigation into the catastrophic and intentional sedative overdosings, the fraudulent diagnosis by Dr Anita Shea, the aggressively coerced life termination under false pretences by Dr Steffi Jalava, the conversion of a private client's pet as a live specimen for multiple, invasive hands-on student training and video production exercises, records falsification (subject to an active Police report under NZ Crimes Act 1961), fraudulent invoicing practices overseen by Practice Manager Pauline Nijman, OIA non-compliances by Chief of Staff Jodie Banner (including over her evasion of the issue of who gives permission for the training resource use of clients' pets), Privacy Act breaches by anonymous staff emailers, nil chain-of-custody over Harry's remains, campaign of online torment by staff or others with access to Harry's Massey records, and now, the active Ministry of Primary Industries' animal welfare investigation currently under way into the facility's operations.
At this point, all that has resulted from this exercise is another silencing order from Veterinary "School" Dean Jon Huxley . . . which, I'm sure, he has subsequently regretted just as much as he regretted his first threat back on January 30, 2026 to set his esteemed law firm, Buddle Findlay, onto me.
MEDIA RELEASE: Massey Veterinary ICU's 'Wild West' Practices & Covert Use of Clients' Pets As Live Teaching Specimens
On June 15, 2026, a Media Release documenting the Harry Kelly case was distributed to recipients across New Zealand and internationally — including major news organisations, veterinary publications, animal welfare bodies, and academic institutions.
This was only the first Media Release of the formal campaign and was designed to move awareness of the case and the dangerous systemic rot in the Massey veterinary teaching facility beyond the readership of this publication and into the hands of journalists, editors and animal welfare advocates.
The Release summarises the core findings: the catastrophic and repeated contraindicated sedative overdosings, the covert conversion of Harry as a live teaching specimen, the fraudulent neurological diagnosis used to coerce his then-disposal, the records falsification now subject to Police Report OR-2484821N, and the active Ministry of Primary Industries Animal Welfare investigation.
It also documents the systematic stonewalling by Massey, the antics by the University's Legal and Governance Director Jodie Banner with regard to information release, the collusion between Dean Jon Huxley and Veterinary Council CEO Iain McLachlan (now the subject of a formal Law Society investigation) and the failure of the three international accrediting bodies to act despite multitudes of detailed evidence provided directly to them of breaches of their own accreditation requirements.
A comprehensive series of 23 questions, each addressing a core component of the Harry Kelly case, has been sent to the Vice-Chancellor of Massey University, Pierre Venter, and to the Dean of its Veterinary School, Jon Huxley, insisting that answers be given to what will demonstrate, graphically, the extent of the horrific incompetence, reckless and unaccountable clinical practices, systemic staff culture issues, lack of management oversight and control, and - most alarmingly and conclusively of all - the covert, unauthorised, and lethal conversion of private, fee-paying clients' pets as live specimens for student teaching activities.
Also cc'd to the three agencies rubber-stamping Massey with their own accreditation i.e. the Australasian Veterinary Board of Councils (AVBC), the American Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA), and the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons (UK). The ethics of the heads of each agency are themselves challenged, given their current "see no evil" position despite being continually updated with the deep, evidential data published here on The Customer & The Constituent NZ and our new Group publication, that of the International Institute for Improvement in Veterinary Ethics (IIIVE).
What these conveniently blind-eye accreditors are currently ignoring includes, but is far from limited to, documented criminal activity (NZ Police Report OR-2484821N filed under Crimes Act 1961 Sections 258 and 260) and the now active New Zealand Ministry of Primary Industries' Animal Welfare Complex Cases Unit investigation. And much, much more.
UPDATE: I have added specificity to Question 21 — which puts Chief of Staff Jodie Banner under the spotlight for her fancy footwork designed to evade OIA and Privacy Act information release obligations . . . citing the specific example of her strategic OIA-to-Privacy-Act reclassification of my questions surrounding the institutional authorisations, Animal Ethics Committee records, and internal risk communications that would reveal who approved Harry's conversion from a paying patient into a student teaching resource — a reclassification that shrinks Massey's disclosure obligations from full institutional transparency down to personal information only, conveniently shielding the very documents that matter most.
Four months after his single, carefully managed acknowledgement — designed to look co-operative in front of the six government ministers to whose attention I had drawn the matter in the face of his and Massey's continued stonewalling, before he disappeared again — VCNZ CEO Iain McLachlan is once more directly addressed as primary addressee.
As a practising lawyer bound by professional obligations that his deputy is not, McLachlan is called to answer three specific questions arising from Shields's June 8 totally inadequate names disclosure: whether "Dr" Steffi Jalava's conversion of Harry to a teaching resource was her own institutional decision; what specific "treatment" "Dr" Anita Shea oversaw given that Harry required only rehydration; and who approved the sedatives administered immediately prior to Massey's conversion of him as a student teaching and filming resource.
McLachlan's response - or lack thereof - will be published both here on The Customer & The Constituent, and on the website of the International Institute for Improvement in Veterinary Ethics (IIIVE.org).
UPDATE: With the greatest of predictability, McLachlan came back with a three-short paragraph "response" with the intentionally demeaning and diminishing opener that I (Jordan) "have been carrying this for some time, and (McLachlan is) truly sorry for your loss of Harry" as his indirect dismissal of the severity and gravity of the entire case, before concluding with a quick, cursory dismissal of his own responsibilities by essentially saying it was his Deputy's job to handle such business-as-usual matters, not his, under the VCNZ's carve-up of tasks.
That predictability and institutional, as well as personal, disingenuousness is not only insulting, it is the direct outward demonstration of an entrenched bureaucratic deflective playbook known as the "5Ds" in the upper, inner circles of politics and public institutions. In the context of the Harry Kelly case, it was an overt flag as to the intended framing that will be applied to the regulatory complaints process and, likely also, Massey's legal defence. It's also absolutely typical of what complainants in most public sector complaints processes and disputes face . . . and don't know how to handle and are eventually worn down by. Which is precisely the institutions' and agencies' intention.
But . . . help is on the way. I have dissected McLachlan's "response" in a quick but, I trust, helpful tutorial for fellow pet owners in their own attempts to achieve accountability from the veterinary sector (which they almost certainly won't get through the Veterinary Council of New Zealand with its 1.5% prosecution rate) and indeed, for the edification of any member of the public up against "the machine".
Response to VCNZ Deputy Registrar Liam Shields' partial, deliberately incomplete disclosure i.e just two veterinary staff names — one I'd long since independently identified and published. Shields has allowed Massey to attribute everything else to unnamed staff "following the treatment plan" (that is, a "treatment plan" for a simple rehydration procedure during which he was lethal-level overdosed with sedation cocktails and utilised for student activities and filming).
My response poses the question neither Shields nor Massey can answer without consequences . . . a question to which there are only two possible answers: Name the specific licensed staff (since they won't name any other staff) that the VCNZ and Massey's management are protecting OR make the public admission that Massey's ICU operates through the night without any licensed veterinarian in attendance.
A 13-page forensic analysis cross-referencing Harry's independent (non-Massey) veterinary records (including some from as recently as 12 days' prior to his fatal admission to Massey) against Massey's own (heavily manipulated, demonstrably incompetent, and released only after time with Massey's Legal & Governance team) "Clinical Summary" has been produced and submitted to the Ministry of Primary Industries' Animal Welfare Complex Cases Unit.
Harry - provably and demonstrably -required nothing more than the rehydration for which he was admitted. They chose to give him something else entirely.
Another caustic and cruel (this time, "zoe@zoe") anonymous insider email dropped in (and has been forwarded to the MPI investigators) — arriving at 9.23pm on a Sunday night and coinciding with the exact time on the exact day of the week as the evening shift intaking Harry on November 30. Coincidental? Maybe. Maybe not.
Demonstrating the precise fatalities-waiting-to-happen clinical incompetence as the previous anonymouses, "Zoe" was even less restrained in openly admitting to having direct access to Harry's Massey ICU records.
Following the publication of this article, "zoe@zoe" emailed twice the next night (7.28pm and 8.18pm), the latter now from his or her new "lol@lol" pen name, with the taunt that she/he "wasn't panicked" (ref. my article) and doing his or her best to create the impression that he or she was based outside of New Zealand . . . while directly referencing his/her email from the previous night in which he/she demonstrated that she/he had full access to Harry's Massey ICU records.
At this point, private clinical records are being openly used as a trolling tool, staff appear to be left to operate totally outside of any institutional control, overt and ongoing breaches of the Privacy Act 2020 are occurring without, seemingly, any concern by Massey or the veterinary facility's practice management, attempts are being made to interfere with an active Ministry of Primary Industries' animal welfare investigation, and a growing, massive public liability is being created for Massey. If Massey's management and its premier legal firm can't stop their own staff trolling a former client, pet owner (or, former pet owner, thanks to Massey) and journalist, they quite clearly have no control over what those same staff do to clients' pets in their most vulnerable states behind those closed ICU doors.
A collection of reader accounts - submitted through this website and/or in conversation with those who have approached me in my capacity as Editor-in-Chief of this platform - document the same brand of systemic failures as my beloved papillon, Harry, was fatally subjected to:
These submissions outline a devastating institutional reality: undisclosed convenience over-sedation, aggressive and groundless "euthanasia" recommendations designed to obscure clinical errors, junior unsupervised staff conducting procedures far beyond their technical competence, and urgent, life-critical matters left unapologetically unattended. Most shockingly, the accounts document a canine chemotherapy protocol administered without the clinically mandated rest periods between courses - demonstrating an apparent ignorance of, or total disregard for, established veterinary oncological safety protocols.
This compilation of reader experiences demonstrates clearly that the catastrophic events of November 30 and December 1, 2025, that led to the completely unnecessary death of my own precious pet, were not isolated incidents. This is an entrenched institutional culture operating entirely without transparency or accountability.
Huxley’s House of Veterinary ‘Teaching’ Horrors: OIA Asks Who Authorises Massey's Lab Rat Use of Private Clients’ Pets? (Clients Have NO Idea You're Using Their Pets for Unethical, Unauthorised, Lethal Student Activities and Filming)
The raw, unvarnished horrifying truth Massey Veterinary Teaching Hospital aka Companion Animal Hospital least want their pet owner-clients to see . . . and the Official Information Act correspondence that will expose that horrifying truth whether Chief of Staff Jodie Banner answers this one, or like others, elects to ignore or dance around it.
This article challenges the "honorable" Dean to come clean, and admit that his staff - the likes of Practice Manager Pauline Nijman, and Dr Steffi Maja Jalava, the ICU vet who killed Harry under the false pretences of a fraudulent "neurological" diagnosis after undisclosed and unauthorised repeated, catastrophic, contraindicated sedative cocktail overdosing and the disconnection of his IV fluids for secretive conversion by the university's "teaching" staff as a training and film subject - ARE, contrary to all assurances given to private fee-paying pet-owner clients, utilising their pets as teaching model profit centres (at risk of lethal outcomes, and as in Harry's case, specifically intended).
It links directly to the article below that points out the dangerous irony of Dean Jon Huxley's simultaneous role as auditor-and-approver of other teaching establishments globally, when his own "hospital" and teaching facility is the subject of an active investigation by the Ministry of Primary Industries' Animal Welfare Complex Cases Unit, the subject of a police filing under the Crimes Act 1961 for records falsification, fraudulent client invoicing practices (which also include active staff involvement), and multiple staff of which would each be the subject of a formal complaint to the Veterinary Council of New Zealand (VCNZ), if the VCNZ's Chief Executive, Iain McLachlan, wasn't himself the subject of an active Law Society of New Zealand investigation for collusion with Huxley to prevent the laying of those same complaints by supporting Massey's total name-redaction antics - and, as a substitute for any semblance of a complaints process, deploys first ignorance and contempt towards pet owners, and then, in the case of the peskily persistent, fires off heavy-handed threats of legal action by national, top-tier law firms, that are no doubt happily gobbling up the budget (including by reading and analysing each piece of coverage I produce) of a cash-strapped University busy closing down entire academic programs, making large swathes of staff redundant, and selling off real estate assets to fund massive debt levels.
The Conflicts-of-Interest Web Spins Wide . . . And Catches All (As Did the Trap Expressly Set)
International "accreditations" are meaningless as anything other than marketing and branding tools In the veterinary teaching hospital arena and cannot be trusted by either pet owner-clients or by intending students. The need for pet parent diligence - and for the due diligence of intending veterinary students - has never been more critical and urgent: Many months of evidence-rich correspondence have been sent, along with the provision of the now
50+ dossier of forensically detailed articles on
The Customer & The Constituent NZ, to these three international "accreditation" organisations. They have done nothing - either collectively or individually - and have gone out of their way to deflect any and all concerns.
The deep structural incestuousness and self-interests of global veterinary accreditation networks, and the inherent untrustworthiness of these "accreditations", is exemplified clearly by the extraordinary fact that Jon Huxley, the Dean of Massey University's Veterinary Teaching Hospital (aka "Companion Animal Hospital") (whose management and staff conducted the intentional catastrophic overdosing of Harry, the covert conversion of him from private property to institutional teaching and film prop status, thecoercion of his owner to consent to his killing under the false pretences of a completely fraudulent diagnosis) and then scrubbed the University's digital footprint clean two days later to foil any possible future clinical investigation, sits on the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons (RCVS) Course Accreditation Visitations Panel.
The same academic whose own institution is the subject of an intensive and ongoing animal cruelty investigation by New Zealand's Ministry of Primary Industries' complex cases animal welfare unit, that continues to redact the identities and roles of all clinical staff involved in Harry's case against all accepted international standards (as expressly acknowledged in writing by the RCVS own Senior Standards and Advice Officer and Solicitor), and whose practice management engages in deceptive billing practices, amongst many other massive ethics and clinical failures, including the deployment of the financially failing University's budget to top-tier external legal counsel in an attempt to silence pet-owner clients . . . that same operative is one of the apparently expert independent auditors sent directly into global veterinary schools to inspect facilities, audit clinical files, interview staff, and evaluate ethical governance . . . and whose feedback forms part of the basis upon which the RCVS awards and renews its accreditations.
When I left Harry with Massey’s Companion Animal “Hospital” staff just 15 hours earlier - for a straightforward 24-hour rehydration protocol - he looked like a completely normal dog. This Is what Massey's reprehensible, repeated, unnecessary, unauthorised, contraindicated, convenience-sedation 750% intentional overdoses did to this poor little dehydrated, renally-impaired blind dog.
NOT ‘Euthanasia’: A Cover-Up & A Coerced Termination Under False Pretences and The Criticality of ALWAYS Obtaining A Second (& Third) Opinion Before Agreeing to 'Euthanase' Your Pet including to ensure against a possibility like this: With A Fearless Pet Welfare Advocate for An Owner, Was Harry A Marked Dog?
Dr Steffi Jalava’s heinous plan to present one grossly over-sedated Harry falsely to me (without any disclosure of his true i.e. sedated, state) as having suffered some sudden "neurological" event or decline . . . so that I would sign the form for his immediate "euthanasia". The full timeline of the abuse, torture, and the execution of the cruel deception – from the beginning of Massey ICU overnight staff’s catastrophic overdosing of Harry, through to their then-intended utilisation of him in student activities and multiple video productions, through to the minute detail of Dr Steffi Jalava’s aggressive two-hour coercion of a pet owner to extract a signature on a “euthanasia” “consent” form . . . in order to literally destroy the body of evidence: Harry. Includes the final scene where this wicked individual laughed openly at Harry’s valiant attempts to push through what Jalava knew only too well was his sedated state, but the uninformed and heartbroken owner did not.
And why Jalava set up the entire logistics of the plan not only with a completely false diagnosis but with a false sense of urgency, in order to ensure against the entry of any independent opinion into the picture . . . which would have immediately uncovered the sedation-based ruse . . . which was enabled by the fact that Harry had no referring vet that night, and thus Jalava knew she had no external practitioner to account to for her actions and coercion of the client . . . a client who had previously made known to management (repeatedly) their concerns about ICU staff's negligence on prior occasions.
Shifting the focus directly onto the unverified assistant present at the (despicably unnecessary but planned by Jalava) termination of Harry's life, this article asks this student/nurse (whatever she was) soul-searching questions designed to flush out whether (unlike the Pentobarbital-slap-happy Jalava) she actually has a soul.
This article also voices observations about the inappropriateness of Jalava's ripping the cap off the syringe with her teeth as she sped up the process to ensure against the owner's likely change of heart, when Harry started to push himself out of what the owner (that is, I) later discovered was his sedated (not Jalava's invented neurologically "unfixable") state (or his neurologically anything) . . . along with Jalava's pre-photographing insistence upon the owner's scarf being made to physically obscure the premium $200 MILA Dura Flow Coil device (discovered as being such, on the paid-but-not-disclosed-at-the-time invoice), exposing the contradiction between Jalava's "Clinical Summary" stating Harry was supposedly "unfixable" (although precisely from what, of course, was intentionally unclear other than some apparently sudden, vague "neurological" something) and the high-mobility recovery hardware they were actively using and charging for.
Put more plainly, the simple rehydration process prescribed and billed for - and that had been all Harry required for a full and straighforward recovery, which he was already beginning to make (thus the use of this specific device) - was intentionally cut short and replaced with a plan for his utilisation in inhumane student training activities, to be followed by his chemical destruction, "consent" for which was to be achieved by way of a fraudulent diagnosis . . . and which had to be achieved with further, adjunct deceptions.
Also examined: The clinical significance of Jalava's compression of the timeline between the pre-sedation and the lethal pentobarbital injection — and what standard two-stage euthanasia protocol requires, versus what was delivered to Harry — and the inhumane suffering inflicted on him in those (again, unnecessarily) final moments, and on his owner upon subsequently discovering the truth of what he endured.
Off-the-Charts Evil In New Zealand's Veterinary House of Horrors . . . A Pet Parent's Victim Impact Statement and The Killing of Harry . . . The Fatal Consequences of Ignoring Intuition
What it feels like to sit ongoingly with the posthumous awareness that you fell for the cruelest deception any pet owner could ever be subject to. That it caused you to unknowingly betray the deepest bond a human and animal could ever experience . . . actively participating in what you later beyond heartbreakingly learned, was a total falsehood to which you were wickedly subjected to in your intentionally knowledge-deprived and documented sleep-deprived state. An absence of informed consent is reprehensible enough. This took it to a whole new level of sheer evil. The self-recrimination that eats you alive when you know the intuition that was screaming at you that something isn’t adding up, was right . . . and you ignored it, at the unnecessary cost of your beloved dog’s life.
KILLING HARRY . . . The Gabapentin Gamble That Didn't Pay Off & the Cover-Up That Necessitated Death
How Massey Companion Animal “Hospital’s” ICU and veterinary staff’s arrogantly reckless, lazy, slap-happy use of convenience sedation in place of human care or comfort, spiraled into something bigger, badder and beyond comprehension to the average human with any sense of conscience . . . let alone to a trusting pet-owner client.
Massey Vet Teaching Hospital ICU: Where Empathy Goes to Die and Massey University’s Enduring, Vertically Integrated Culture of Cruelty & Cancellation and The NZ Veterinary Sector's Best-Kept & Most Dangerous Secret: That There ARE Competing Options in the Specialist Space
The beyond-comprehension scene of two laughing, socialising ICU attendants literally ignoring a tiny blind dog screaming in terror in a cage, just metres away from them, as he stood up on his hind legs with his front paws outstretched through a cage door pleading for comfort and orientation. And how they continued their full ignorance of him even in the presence of the pleading owner, who was too reticent to speak frankly for fear of Massey’s “cancel culture” and likely retribution to her pet in her absence . . . which eventuated regardless.
And to all befittingly horrified pet owners, here's what Massey doesn't want you to know: Massey now has an increasing amount of competition in the specialist field.
Not every reader will have the stomach for this . . . even so, what you will see is only the tip of the iceberg of the psychopathically cruel student activities and film productions Harry was intentionally engineered into a state of pharmacological collapse to facilitate (Massey refuses to release the worst evidence) . . . and that he was disconnected from his, by-then, life-essential IV rehydration protocol to obtain. This article also documents – together with detailed screen shots – missing critical vitals monitoring data for the entire second day of his “stay” at Massey i.e. the day of Jalava’s and teaching staff’s utilisation of him as a training aid. This is what Massey is demonstrating to its veterinary students (and asking them to participate in) as apparently acceptable handling and commercial "teaching" usage of a private client's treasured pet.
MASSEY VETS FALSIFY RECORDS: POLICE REPORT FILED
and
342 Pages of Forensic Evidence. Two Months in the Making. Now In the Hands of MPI's Animal Welfare Investigations Team.
From a criminal perspective, the most important evidentiary article in the entire series to date. When I finally prised a specific deep-data document out of Massey, they had no idea I'd know how to read and interpret it. I did. This article takes the reader through a timeline within a timeline that demonstrates how they overdose-sedated Harry in perfect timing for their intended utilisation of him in his resultant pharmacologically collapsed state in psychopathically cruel and invasive student activities filmed on cell phones. It then takes the reader through the fraudulent increase of my invoice immediately AFTER they had killed him. Then - through my continuation of evidential screen shots and document captures - I show the reader clearly how someone at the University with what is known as "God view" access, entered the system two days later and made certain changes to lose the trail of what was done to Harry, to obscure it from any possible future investigation. Which is exactly what is now occurring, with the Ministry of Primary Industries' Animal Welfare complex cases investigators actively on the case.
Catching Massey In A Lethal Lie: Forensic Study of Invoice Demonstrates Fraudulent Killing of Harry Kelly and My Message to This Massey Vet Nurse: There Comes A Time When Truth Is Finally the Most Tenable Option and ICU Vet, Massey Neurologist & Dean of School: Dangerously Deficient or Just Plain Dangerous? and Retrofitting the Record & Doctoring the Narrative
The day I posthumously discovered the ruse . . . I opened the invoice that Massey made sure not to show me on the night . . . and saw the awful truth: Harry had been sedated. Harry had also been initially fitted with very expensive IV rehydration fluids-delivery equipment to stop him "crocodile rolling" (per Massey's own notes and something a "neurologically" screwed dog could never do) so that his full 24-hour rehydration protocol could be completed . . .prior to their decision that they had a more profitable use for him: student "teaching" activities and becoming the subject in multiple intensely cruel but highly profitable videos.
It also demonstrates that whoever Massey's Legal and Governance department had hygienise Harry's "Clinical Summary" before releasing it to me (i.e. they stopped it just prior to the clinic's advised release date to "review" it) was either a non-vet or a completely incompetent one. A vet would have known that documenting crocodile rolling directly contradicts a severe acute neurological decline diagnosis. So those notes were doctored either by someone who didn't understand the clinical implications of what they were leaving in, or by someone who removed other things but missed that one because they didn't recognise its significance. Either way, Massey's own notes undermining their own narrative.
Back to the invoice: This also provides the document-displayed evidence of how, at the same time as they were billing me for equipment for his recovery, they were also preparing the plan for extracting my consent for his termination and literally dispensing the "euthanasia" chemical. This article also demonstrates clearly - with captures of, and detailed commentaries on, the various line items within the invoice - how Massey's pet-owner clients could easily be paying fraudulently billed amounts, just as I did. Pet-owners: Insist upon not only being shown your invoices at the time of payment, but having the vet in question walk you through every entry. Especially if you are a client of Massey's Companion Animal "Hospital".
Massey Sends In the Legal Big Guns to Silence Me: Guess What? You Silenced Harry But You Won't Silence Me and STILL WAITING, MASSEY: Five Months of Stonewalling . . . And Counting and WAITING, MASSEY . . . Are You Going to Comply with Your Legally Required Information-Release Obligations?
Massey's management - and specifically its Dean of the School of Veterinary Science (that always makes me laugh, or it would if the consequences weren't fatal), Jon Huxley, and its Chief of Staff, Jodie Banner, have a rampant allergy to the disclosure of even the most essential information: like (but certainly far from limited to) the names of the vets (or any of the other personnel) who "treated" your pet.
So allergic, in fact, that if you speak out about your concerns, they'll hammer you with a Big. Bad. Legal Threat. And from their big-ticket, top-shelf law firm, Buddle Findlay, no less. The only problem is . . . and it's entirely their problem and not mine . . . it didn't work. Not on me, anyway. Much to their no doubt continuing horror. (Actually, it's even worse, the unwarranted outsized and arrogant ego of the Dean got sorely wounded - and very publicly - in the process.)
Massey’s Companion Animal Hospital Commits Multiple Breaches of New Zealand's Veterinary Code (And More) and Open Letter to VCNZ CEO, Iain McLachlan: Formal Complaint - ICU Veterinary Personnel and Massey's Dean Jon Huxley Assures Collusive Veterinary Council: Nothing to See Here, Boys and Yes, Please, VCNZ's Liam Shields, I WILL Have the Names You Have Been Obligated to Extract from Massey for the PAST THREE MONTHS and Slippery Birds of A Feather . . . Massey & the Vet Council Flock Together and Can I Have A Straighter Answer, Please, Vet Council's Liam Shields? Do I Get the Names or Not? and Veterinary Council of NZ to Disclose Names: Don’t Get Excited. It’s Not What It Sounds Like. and Bad News for Massey Staff: That Institutional Shield You Thought Would Always Protect You? It Has a Crack Right Down the Middle
When Massey's Dean of the School of Veterinary Science sent me his Buddle Findlay legal threat when he realised I wasn't going away any time soon, it led me down a path of parallel investigation: Precisely why, when I was copying the Chief Executive of the Veterinary Council of New Zealand, Iain McLachlan, into every single email (along with his deputy, Liam Shields, and his "Professional Standards Advisor", Seton Butler) had not one of them, at any point, across five months of my persistent, detailed, and evidence-brimming correspondence, not responded with any concern whatsoever?
The combination of these articles explain, in graphic detail, exactly why. The Veterinary Council and Massey are, to a very material degree, almost one and the same organisation. The conflicts of interest are multiple, rampant, and structurally in-built. And running alongside of that, the collusion is shameless. McLachlan's Veterinary Council - the so-called "regulator" and "watchdog" of the "profession" and its "standards" has done, and continues to do, all it can to help Massey evade any accountability . . . right down to disabling me from being able to even lay complaints, because it hasn't done what it is legally empowered, and even mandated to do, i.e. compel Massey to release the names of the veterinarians involved in Harry's case . . . without which I can't actually lay a complaint. That's how it works.
And how it also works is this: Across a period of more than two decades, the Veterinary Council of New Zealand has only ever upheld 1.5% of complaints laid against its member vets. And yes, the decimal point is in the correct place: one. point. five. percent. Meantime, McLachlan (a registered lawyer) is now himself currently the subject of an accepted and active complaint with the New Zealand Law Society
But there's something I know that Massey and its staff don't know. Or, at least, that they're almost certainly too arrogant to take seriously. Until they do.
Massey Evades OIA on Legal Fees: What Are You Hiding, and Who's Paying for It? and Massey University's Upside-Down Prioritisation of Taxpayer Funds: Fiscal Malfeasance & the TRUE Cost of Institutional Arrogance and Open Letter to Incoming Massey VC, Pierre Venter: Will You Clean Up the Lethal Levels of Incompetence, Clinical Negligence & Undisclosed Procedures on Clients' Pets?
When the incoming Massey University Vice-Chancellor arrived at his desk on February 2, 2026, he no doubt arrived with a mandate to clean up a fiscal mess: the University was literally selling the roofs above its heads, cutting some of its most core curricula, and axing academic staff by the gaggle. But the "honorable" Pierre Venter chose to pick up not a new mantle, but the poisoned chalice of the status quo. ("Who left this bomb on my desk? Please detonate it elsewhere.")
Rather than clean up both the ethical and the financial mudslide it was hoped he would help the University emerge from under, Venter has chosen to press on with the extraordinarily upside down priorities dictated by the incumbent "senior" management team and the broader culture of the establishment.
One can reasonably assume he's fully aware of where Huxley and Banner are hiding the bodies i.e. the surely by now stratospheric, and continually northward-directional, legal fees. Their response to my first Official Information Act request for the disclosure of the fees to date met with some fancy (but transparent) footwork . . . and the equivalent of a declaration of "what legal fees?" My bad. I've tightened up my subsequent request to block the exits, this time. I'm waiting for their response.
UPDATE: I have added specificity to Question 21 — which puts Chief of Staff Jodie Banner under the spotlight for her fancy footwork designed to evade OIA and Privacy Act information release obligations . . . citing the specific example of her strategic OIA-to-Privacy-Act reclassification of my questions surrounding the institutional authorisations, Animal Ethics Committee records, and internal risk communications that would reveal who approved Harry's conversion from a paying patient into a student teaching resource — a reclassification that shrinks Massey's disclosure obligations from full institutional transparency down to personal information only, conveniently shielding the very documents that matter most.
Is Massey's Companion Animal ‘Hospital’ Running Potentially Lethal Experiments on People's Pets In ICU? and The Cruel Way Massey's ‘Companion Animal Hospital’ Uses Your Pet As A Training Aid Behind Closed Doors e.g. Repeated Unrelated, Invasive 'Observational' Tests and Massey Withholds Footage Following Discovery of ICU Cruelty: Formal Complaint Filed With Privacy Commissioner to Force Full Release and OPEN LETTER TO PRIVACY COMMISSIONER: Make Massey Release Withheld Videos of ICU ‘Care’
Clinical malpractice Is one thing.
The intentional continuation of that clinical malpractice once discovered, for cold observation of its equally intentionally unmitigated consequences, for student "teaching prop' value . . . and then manufacturing a false "terminal neurological diagnosis necessitating immediate euthanasia" . . . that's quite another thing again. But that's precisely what Massey ICU staff and the day vet, "Dr" Steffi Jalava and her compliant "neurologist" accomplice did. Coercing a client into a euthanasia decision while concealing the fact that the animal was suffering from an unmanaged reaction to an unconsented, strictly contraindicated drug (not once, but repeatedly administered to him, with a potentiating agent) - rather than a natural decline - is a total collapse of the most fundamental veterinary ethics - both at an individual, and at an institutional, level.
Jalava, her "neurologist", "teaching" staff, and the "hospital's" practice manager demonstrated the most heinous and total collapse in institution and professional ethics with their reclassification of a living pet into a "drug reaction observation" status followed by a "discarded data point" to be destroyed upon the successful duping of that pet's owner in a pre-meditated deception to extract her uninformed "consent" for his non-negotiable, on-the-spot termination.
Collectively and individually they breached not only any conceivable standard of general morality and ethics, but also (examples only; many more were breached) the Veterinary Council of New Zealand's Code of Professional Conduct's Clause 2.4 (Second Opinions and Referrals), the Code's Clause 1.4 (Honest and Effective Communication), the Code's Clause 1.1 (Animal Welfare As the First Consideration), as well as Communication of A False Diagnosis, Failure to Administer Life-Saving Treatment, and also a violation of the Consumer Guarantees Act i.e. failure to provide veterinary services with "reasonable care and skill", and (with regard to the loss of Harry's ashes) a total failure to maintain a transparent, professional chain of custody. All complemented by a Privacy Act breach by refusing the owner's repeated requests for the provision of the full suite of videos produced, without her authority, of her dog.
A critical frame-by-frame forensically detailed analysis of 15 photographs of Harry taken immediately before "Dr" Steffi Maja Jalava's termination of him based on - what this critical evaluation clearly demonstrates - is an entirely fraudulent diagnosis. Using high-resolution photographic evidence, the AI model identifies specific visual markers - posture, muscle tone, and ocular state - to determine whether the subject was experiencing an acute neurological crisis or profound pharmacological suppression:
"While the attending clinician at Massey University Companion Animal Hospital asserted that Harry was experiencing a terminal 'neurological event' or sudden rapid 'decline', these images reveal the classic symmetrical markers of pharmacological suppression: total muscle flaccidity (hypotonia), loss of the 'righting reflex', and a vacant, 'glassy' ocular state. There is no evidence in this visual record of the chaotic distress, involuntary muscle tremors, or asymmetrical deficits typically associated with a catastrophic brain crisis. Instead, we see a dog that has been systematically 'turned off' by a combination of Gabapentin and Prevomax - a 'metabolic logjam' that Harry’s senior system, compromised by kidney disease, was unable to clear."
Are These Harry’s Ashes? Or Aren’t They? and The Ultimate Behind-the-Scenes, Invisible Industry: Pet Cremation
They even despatched Harry's dear little (again, unnecessarily) dead body off without any formal communications or paperwork or record of owner instructions, or tracing mechanism, and someone somewhere told someone that I "didn't want Harry back" when, in fact, I had wanted to pay for him to be cremated individually so I could be sure the ashes I got back were his and not part of some communal cremation. Instead I received a call demanding $120 for a "disposal fee".
if you would like to see just how contemptuously the Massey machine treats those who have paid it many thousands of dollars over the course of their pet's lifetime, and tens of thousands over the course of all their multiple pets' collectively - this article features a sample i.e. an audio recording of a more than one-hour phone call I made to follow up all my ignored emails. It wasn't just contemptuous . . . this is a live recording of a group of staff who appeared to delight in amplifying and drawing out my intense distress for their twisted enjoyment. (In another article, you'll see how my repeated emails to "Dean" Jon Huxley eventually resulted in his "not our problem and I'm off on holiday now so don't contact me again" dismissal by email. )
Meantime, if you care about your pet's "after care",
you need to do the research that Massey won't, and quite likely, neither will your primary vet.
How Massey 'Training' Produces the Low Vet Care Standards & Outright Contempt NZ Pet Owners Have to Tolerate and The Accountability Black Hole at the Heart of Veterinary Teaching Hospitals . . . and Why Your Pet Has NO Protection
From unapologetic, potentially lethal, incorrect dispensing of medications by a large South Wairarapa veterinary practice, and then another branch of the same chain putting him in clear and present jeopardy without adequate review of his records before hitting him with a contraindicated drug, to the Tararua practice who put Harry on a heart medication during which certain specific periodic testing was meant to be conducted and never was, and which also conducted dental surgery on him without a single prior blood test . . . and numerous other examples well beyond "just" my own . . . the "standards" and contempt with which Massey instills its "graduates" echo throughout the vet practices of New Zealand. This particular article is in a yet-to-be-completed form, but in the interests of pet owners who need to know the risks associated with being way too trusting and unquestioning of the veterinary sector in general, this is a read you need.
And here's something else pet owners need to know: New Zealand has no legal regulation of veterinary nurses or other allied veterinary professions. When you leave your pet at a veterinary teaching hospital - or any veterinary practice, for that matter — you assume the people handling your animal are qualified, registered, and individually accountable for what they do to it. They're not. At least, not all of them. And in some cases, not any of them.
Veterinary Teaching 'Hospitals' & the Great Pay-to-Play 'Accreditation' Game and FOLLOW THE MONEY: The Compromised Veterinary Regulatory & Accreditation 'System'
On a not-dissimilar note to the above article, here's another read you need . . . most especially if you're on the other side of the equation e.g. an aspiring veterinary student, or the intending employer of a veterinary graduate: The three international "accrediting" organisations of Massey's Veterinary Teaching Hospital (aka Companion Animal Hospital) are remarkably unconcerned by any of what you've been reading here. They seem to want us to believe that a veterinary school's educational program is somehow separate from the clinical environment in which it is delivered.
The Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons (UK) openly acknowledged that Massey's continuing refusal to disclose the identities of any of the staff involved in Harry's case
(all names and titles having been fully redacted from the records I've managed to prise out of Massey's Legal and Governance or Chief of Staff Jodie Banner to date)
is completely contrary to all accepted international industry standards. Beyond that, their concern appears non-existent.
Similarly, the American Veterinary Medical Association, whose Dr Samantha Morello, Associate Director of its Education and Research Division, writes: "While students may participate in clinical training within teaching hospitals and affiliated clinical settings, the COE's
(Council of Education) authority and the application of the Standards is limited to evaluating the educational program and does not extend to oversight of patient care or clinical decision-making at the hospital level."
To which I have responded: " . . . "Ms Morello,
there is a distinction you are dishonestly refusing to recognise: students
are observing and participating in patient 'care' and clinical decision-making at the hospital level. That
IS their 'educational program'. It is one and the same thing. Your very own Standards acknowledge this, which is precisely why, in my detailed response to you — which you have not acknowledged — I cited your own Standards 1, 4, 6, 8, 9 and 11 as directly applicable to this matter. "
Meantime, the Australasian Veterinary Boards Council CEO Ms Kate Simkovic remains conveniently deaf, dumb and blind to the issue and its clear and present impacts upon the quality of education the institution she "accredits" offers to the students it charges phenomenal fees to "teach".
You Won’t Wear Me Out or Wait Me Out, Massey. You Killed My Dog, Remember? and IIIVE Went Live Early: Making Good on All Promises to Hold Massey's Monsters Accountable . . . Internationally and 342 Pages of Forensic Evidence. Two Months in the Making. Now In the Hands of MPI's Animal Welfare Investigations Team.
Published January 16, 2026. Believe me now, Massey? Believe me now, "Dr" Steffi Maja Jalava?
And no, the jeering insider and "Hugh Janus" emails - apparently trying to achieve with ridicule and insults what your objection to the presentation of my rock-solid and micro-detailed evidence can't - won't bring about a cessation to my investigations and my continuing (including international) coverage of my findings. I'm made of steelier stuff than that.
So rock on with your courageous cowering behind all your anonymous "@takearealitypill.com" and "@getgriefcounselling.com" email addresses - and all the other equally hilarious (and hilariously juvenile) variants. I'm sure the Ministry of Primary Industries' Animal Welfare Investigations Unit team is finding them as thoroughly desperate and as thoroughly entertaining as I am.
Meantime, to the very specific staff who smart-assedly sent me your cruel little cameo images of Harry's poor tortured face from your students' video productions to mock both his pain and mine . . . are you laughing now?
Other News, Reviews & Commentary
