Are These Harry’s Ashes? Or Aren’t They?
Jordan Kelly • 18 January 2026

A Chain-of-Custody Breakage of the Worst Possible Kind

UPDATE As of January 31, 2026 - two full months to the day since Massey terminated Harry's life - the true whereabouts of Harry's ashes have still not been established. Additionally, there is further concern over whether, in fact, Harry's body might have undergone a strictly forbidden post-mortem, with the pet cremation company's staff member having referred to him as being "collected with the other post-mortems" and having taken receipt of him "in a bag" (as opposed to specially packaged in his blanket and with his toys, as the Massey vet claimed to have done but with no evidence ever provided).

_____________________________________


When Massey University Companion Animal Hospital recommended a specific cremation provider for Harry, they were initiating a clinical and ethical chain of custody. They vouched for the provider's integrity in the final act of care.


What followed was a horrific collapse of professional standards involving what appeared to be either a complete screw-up, a complete lapse, or a total absence in communications of my requirements by the hospital to the provider, pet cremation company Pet Farewells of Hamilton . . . and/or the total disarray of internal communications within the cremation company itself, along with a refusal to provide the authentication of the remains (after having themselves created significant doubt).


The shameful, unprofessional and quickly terminated communications by Pet Farewells first involved a phone call to collect a "$120 disposal fee" for Harry's ashes (having been told by someone, somewhere, that I "didn't want Harry back" - a nonsensical claim since I was prepared to pay for his body to be taken from Palmerston North to Hamilton for individual (rather than group) cremation. It then morphed quickly into a contradictory email claiming that "Harry is tucked up on (someone's) table" waiting for me to place an order through the Pet Farewells website.


From 'Disposal' Status to 'Ashes Are on the Desk' Status in the Course of Ten Minutes. Suspicious Much, Anybody?

It then began descending into total degeneration when I quite reasonably, under the circumstances, asked for some form of verification that the ashes actually
were Harry's - since they had gone from "disposed" status to "on the desk" status in the course of approximately 10 minutes.


My suggestion that authentication would be simple by virtue of a photograph of the remnants of the gold cross and chain that Harry had been sent to them with, was met with terse, scientifically impossible metallurgical claims and those regarding the physics of cremation.


Where Was Massey In All This? Their Response:  'Not Our Problem.'


In all of this, Massey University's Companion Animal Veterinary Hospital (the recommender of this cremation company and the despatcher of Harry's precious little body) responded to my cc'ing them in to all the emails with . . . nothing.


They washed their hands of it with the proficiency that would have been better employed in the proper management of the chain of custody to start with. In other words, a complete institutional refusal by Massey to take responsibility for any part of the patient journey that they initiated . . .despite not only their moral obligation, but also their legal obligation under the Common Law of Bailment and the Veterinary Council of New Zealand’s Code of Professional Conduct Clause 1.13 I, obligating the hospital to ensure the safe and verifiable return of the patient remains whose transfer they facilitated, recommended, and oversaw.


In fact, 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 pets' collectively - here's a sample i.e. an audio recording of a more than one-hour phone call I made to follow up all my ignored emails:

The Pet Farewells Thread – Shifting Narratives and the Authentication Failure


Meanwhile, here are the cold and evasive emails from Pet Farewells. The following timeline captures the exchange between myself and the management of Pet Farewells (Gavin and Lyn Shepherd / Kathy).


From : editor@consumeraffairswriter.com
Sent : Monday, 22 December 2025 4:13 pm 
To :  'Lyn Shepherd' lyn@petfarewells.co.nz 
Cc : 'vethospital@massey.ac.nz' 
Subject : 2ND NOTICE: Transfer of Custody Required & Invoice for Same - Jordan Kelly


Attn:
Lyn Shepherd / Management


I am writing to formally note that my written instructions regarding the transfer of custody of the item currently held by you (my email as below i.e. sent Friday, 2.21pm) have been ignored to date.


Current Situation:


  • I have provided clear instructions on the vessel (Scatter Tube) and the delivery method (Track-&-Trace, Signature-Required Courier to my home address, as below).

  • I have requested the final invoice so that I can make immediate payment.

  • You have failed to provide that invoice or any indication of intention to act on my instructions.

By refusing to issue the invoice or provide advice of your intention to follow my instructions, you are effectively refusing to release the item.

Action Required:  Please email the invoice immediately upon receipt of this email so that payment can be made and the courier booking secured before the holiday shutdown.

To Massey University (CC'd):  Please note that despite my readiness to pay and facilitate this logistical step, this provider is refusing to release the item entrusted to them via your hospital.

 

From : editor@consumeraffairswriter.com 
Sent : Friday, 19 December 2025 2:21 pm 
To : 'Lyn Shepherd' lyn@petfarewells.co.nz 
Cc : 'vethospital@massey.ac.nz' 
Subject : RE: URGENT: Harry (Owner: Jordan Kelly) - DO NOT DISPOSE + ORDER DETAILS


Attn:
  Lyn Shepherd / Management:

To ensure the physical security of the remains, I am proceeding with the order as follows:

  1. Vessel Selection: I require the Scatter Tube.

  2. Delivery Instruction: Courier strictly with full tracking and SIGNATURE REQUIRED to my home address (address provided)
     
    INSTRUCTION: The courier must NOT leave the package unattended. If no one is home, it must be taken to the local collection point for secure holding.

  3. Payment: Please reply with the final invoice covering the cremation, the Scatter Tube, and the courier fee so that payment can be made.

  4. Legal Notice: My payment for these services is made strictly to secure the custody of the remains; whether Harry’s or not. It does not constitute a retraction of my previous correspondence regarding the lack of authentication (the missing gold chain) nor the issues surrounding the other statements made and associated communications, nor does it waive my right to pursue the matter further.

 


From : Lyn Shepherd lyn@petfarewells.co.nz
Sent : Tuesday, 16 December 2025 2:46 pm
 
Correspondence from Pet Farewells with a third party at my end, regarding return options (i.e. their tone was quite different with me, the owner):

The scatterbox has the ashes inside sealed in a paperbag with a double sided tape, the box itself has a tape to keep it shut and we bubblewrap for transport/courier. The scattertube is a sealed unit, that has it’s own lid, we also bubble wrap. 
We usually drop to the vets involved when they are ready, but we could courier with owners permission, we would need address to check charges. We obviously can order a courier with signature if going to a home address, not clinic. 
Harry is tucked in a cardboard box and bag, the one he was given to me in initially and waiting to go home, let us know the know next move. 
Kind Regards, Kathy

 


From : editor@consumeraffairswriter.com
Sent : Friday, 12 December 2025 12:49 pm 
To : 'Lyn Shepherd' lyn@petfarewells.co.nz 
Cc : 'vethospital@massey.ac.nz' 
Subject : RE: URGENT: Harry (Owner: Jordan Kelly) - DO NOT DISPOSE

 

Mr Shepherd:
 
I do not accept your position. Your reliance on vague assertions from "other operators" is contradicted by the existence of the global post-cremation metal recycling industry (which recovers gold and titanium from human cremations).
 
If gold "vanished" as you claim, that industry would not exist.

Your refusal to provide the temperature logs confirms you cannot support your claim with data. Regarding the ashes: Retain them in storage.

You are strictly instructed NOT to dispose of them. I will advise regarding collection in due course.

Note that my instruction to store them is to preserve potential evidence; it is not a confirmation that I accept the contents are authentic.

 


From : Lyn Shepherd lyn@petfarewells.co.nz 
Sent : Friday, 12 December 2025 12:11 pm
To : editor@consumeraffairswriter.com 
Cc : 'vethospital@massey.ac.nz'


Your research is still incorrect, as other human cremator operators will confirm my position.
 

Don’t email again as I am not interested in further communication.


Advise if you wish Harry’s ashes returned or we will just hold them in storage.


Regards Gavin Shepherd

 


From : editor@consumeraffairswriter.com
Sent : Friday, 12 December 2025 12:02 pm 
To : Lyn Shepherd lyn@petfarewells.co.nz 
Cc : 'vethospital@massey.ac.nz' 
Subject : RE: URGENT: Harry (Owner: Jordan Kelly) - DO NOT DISPOSE


Re: Gold Survival – The Facts


Mr Shepherd:

I HAVE done my research, and my research indicates as follows:


  • Melting Point: Gold melts at 1,064°C. Most pet crematoriums operate between 760°C and 980°C.

  • Physics: Even if it did melt, gold is a dense, noble metal. It does not "seep into the bones" or "vanish" into the hearth like water. It puddles. It forms a glob. That is physics.

  • Industry Proof: If gold "disappeared" during cremation, the entire global industry of post-cremation metal recycling would not exist.

Therefore, your "science" is invalid.
 
Unless you can produce time-stamped temperature logs for this specific cremation proving your furnace exceeded 1,064°C, your claim that the gold 'vanished' is physically impossible.
 
To be clear: My objective is the authentication of the remains. If you cannot demonstrate the gold mass, you cannot prove these ashes are Harry’s.


Jordan Kelly



From : Lyn Shepherd lyn@petfarewells.co.nz 
Sent : Friday, 12 December 2025 9:35 am 
To : editor@consumeraffairswriter.com 
Cc : 'vethospital@massey.ac.nz'


Hello again
 
Your assertion regarding gold surviving cremation and being identified post cremation is incorrect.
 
Gold will melt and seep into the hearth, bedding and the bones.
 
After cremulation there is no lump of gold to see. There is nothing to send you a picture of.


You can either believe us or not, but feel free to do your research.


Regards Gavin Shepherd

 


From : editor@consumeraffairswriter.com 
Sent : Thursday, 11 December 2025 3:35 pm 
To : Lyn Shepherd lyn@petfarewells.co.nz 
Cc : 'vethospital@massey.ac.nz'
Subject : RE: URGENT: Harry (Owner: Jordan Kelly) - DO NOT DISPOSE


Mr Shepherd:


I am not interested in your deadline or "logging in to pay" until you answer my specific question.


I sent Harry into the cremator with a solid gold chain and cross (inscribed "Mummy" on both sides).


Gold does not disappear in a cremation; it melts or remains.


Please send me a photo of the metal/gold recovered from his chamber.


Once you provide proof that the ashes you have are actually Harry's, I will arrange payment and collection immediately.

 

Jordan Kelly



From : editor@consumeraffairswriter.com 
Sent : Wednesday, 10 December 2025 2:47 pm 
To : Lyn Shepherd lyn@petfarewells.co.nz 
Cc : 'vethospital@massey.ac.nz' 
Subject : URGENT: Harry (Owner: Jordan Kelly) - DO NOT DISPOSE


OF COURSE I “want Harry back”
, with regard to your absolute and defensive statement that “We were told you didn’t want Harry back.” (I quote you word-for-word, noting that I am a journalist of more than 40 years’ experience and know how to hear, retain, and record a direct, verbal statement made to me).


Now, however, I have NO idea what I will actually receive i.e. after your call to ask me for a $120 “disposal fee” (your opening statement in the call i.e. you clearly were NOT “intending to discuss other options”).


Imagine if a human crematorium made this sort of screw-up (and then lied about it)?

 


From : Lyn Shepherd lyn@petfarewells.co.nz

Sent : Tuesday, 9 December 2025 9:28 am

To : editor@consumeraffairswriter.com

Subject : Pet Farewells


Hi Jordan,


Just following up on our phone call, I never got to finish.


I will have the ashes this am on my table for Harry. Harry is waiting here for you to communicate your wishes, he is cremated and safely tucked up.


Massey has said we are dealing with you, not through them.

 

Jordan Kelly


The International Accreditation Layer – A Breach of Ethics?


Pet Farewells markets itself as a member of the International Association of Pet Cemeteries & Crematories (IAOPCC).


This membership implies a commitment to a strict Code of Ethics and transparent record-keeping.


However, as noted in the following excerpts and key points from correspondence sent to me by an independent senior consumer affairs advisor (from Consumer New Zealand), Pet Farewells’ conduct appears to be in direct conflict with the very international standards they promote as a key aspect of their accreditation by this "IAOPCC" organisation (also headed by a husband-and-wife team - in the United States, and who are the operators of a multi-generational network of pet crematoria).

 
From : (Consumer Affairs Advisor - Excerpt)
To : Jordan Kelly
Subject: Pet Farewells / IAOPCC


  • The matter is a straightforward Fair Trading Act and Consumer Guarantees Act issue.
     
  • However, the problem is that, for you, this isn't about money, it is about the return of the remains of a beloved pet.


  • Pet Farewells promotes itself as a member of the International Association Of Pet Cemeteries & Crematories (IAOPCC), that has a specific Code of Ethics.


  • There appears to have been a breach of Point 8 (which requires members to maintain thorough and accurate records of every cremation).


  • Unfortunately, it does not seem that the IAOPCC has a complaints process. However, Pet Farewells should be able to show you Harry's burial and cremation records.


The Point:  

If Pet Farewells cannot provide the burial and cremation records or the forensic remains of the gold chain, they are failing not just New Zealand consumer law, but also the (supposed) international ethical standards they use to market their business. 

Other News, Reviews & Commentary

by Jordan Kelly 4 March 2026
Time for Change : New Zealand's Pet Parents Say NO MORE to the Poor Standards, Compromised Care & Outright Contempt We Put Up With from the 'Products' of the Massey Veterinary Degree Factory
by Jordan Kelly 27 February 2026
Readers following the coverage of my attempts to get to the bottom of what happened to my beloved little papillon, Harry, with whom I was extraordinarily closely bonded, will know that: (A) The rot in Massey University’s Companion Animal “Hospital” (CAH) runs deep. (B) Honesty and transparency is not their policy. Denial, dismissal, stonewalling, legal threats and intimidation are. (C) Animals aren’t safe there, with cruelty embedded in “care”, and your property (as your pet legally is) not considered your property at all, as far as Massey, its CAH staff and management are concerned. Your pet is theirs ; to do with as they please, according to their mindset and their modus operandi. And if that involves catastrophic levels of unauthorised, contraindicated, convenience sedation to facilitate their use of your pet in monetised student video collections (including on private cell phones, and to which you will be given no access), this too, according to Massey, is its own God-given right and “best practice” Standard Operating Procedure. (D) “Informed Consent” has a very different meaning in the Massey playbook to that which is generally deemed its accepted definition. (E) “Accountability” is a foreign concept and not one with which they have any intention of becoming acquainted. (F) Laws – including those governing animal welfare, property conversion and more – are not only optional, in Massey’s case, they simply don’t apply. In fact, they appear blissfully ignorant of them according to my (and Harry's) experience. You know all that. You’ve read about it here , here , here , here , here , here , here , here and in most of my other now 30+ articles covering the numerous different sub-atrocities within the overall atrocity that was the demise and disposal of my precious little Harry. Actually, "atrocious" doesn't come anywhere near to being an adequate adjective. Despite having been a professional writer since I was 16 and having upwards of 25 published books under my belt, I don't actually have an adjective that's adequate for the pure evil that was perpetrated upon Harry . . . and, by extension, me . There is not one word or one phrase that can sufficiently convey the depth and breadth of the sheer, unadulterated wickedness that festers without restraint within the walls of Massey University's Companion Animal "Hospital". What you, my readers (or those of you not on Massey's massive legal team payroll) didn’t yet know – because I didn’t yet know – is that record and evidence tampering (which, for any other New Zealand citizen would attract jail time of up to 10 years under the Crimes Act 1961 Section 258 (Altering document with intent to deceive) or Section 260 (Falsifying registers) , and/or a $10,000 fine under the Privacy Act Section 212(2)(b) - appears also to be included in the “we’re exempt” culture of Massey and its veterinary “hospital” staff. Note to Readers: The above laws aren't some hypothetical, bottom-drawer, dusty old legal tracts in archaic library textbooks. They're real, "living" laws that apply to every individual in our country. And today, they are being made to apply to Dr Stephanie Rigg and her "colleagues" who falsified Harry's records to create a cover-up of what they did to him . . . and to me. I will, duly, see Dr Rigg and her associates in Court. Dissecting the Cover-Up: Massey’s Metadata of Deception But back to what readers do know for a moment: You’ll know that I’ve been in the battle of battles for the past two months to extract Harry’s full records (or anything approaching them) from Massey’s Legal and Governance department. HOWEVER . . . there was one thing I hadn’t known how to decipher that they actually had finally drip-fed to me. It was File Name: Patient Change Log (Field-Level Audit) . I’ve been learning a lot about veterinary science, record-keeping, and law in general lately. Not because I wanted to. But because if you want to figure out how deep the rot really runs at Massey, you kind of have to. So I’ve learned a bit about how to decipher clinical metadata. Just e nough to realise that this Patient Change Log (Field-Level Audit) is exactly where the digital fingerprints of a cover-up are hiding. Despite the fact that this document has as much redacted as it shows (probably more), with ALL staff names and positions blacked out, for example -I still found four distinct “smoking gun” entries in these otherwise heavily-redacted metadata logs. BIG. FAT. SMOKING. GUNS. that amounted to one undeniable overall conclusion: This document isn’t a clinical record so much as it’s a literal crime scene . There were already so many dodgy inconsistencies in the few items I'd managed to pull out of Massey to that point (as I've documented in various of my preceding articles). But this document is where, undeniably, the bodies are buried. You just need to know which clod of dirt to look under. Hidden in Plain Sight . . . In A Little Thing Called the Metadata (That the Average Pet Owner Wouldn't Even Know Existed ) There are four hidden but key findings demonstrating that the entire timeline of Harry’s “experience” in that hellhole were was orchestrated, and the sudden "neurological event/decline" exit strategy planned for him were a total fabrication. And that fabrication had a start time. (For this start time we will initially revert our focus back to Massey's previously-supplied "Clinical Summary" (in all its dodginess) . . . We will then lead from the immediately below into the afore-mentioned "Patient Change Log (Field-Level Audit)". Bear with me. I promise not to let this get boring). Well, one of two start times. Either: (1) The 8.38am disconnection of his (with, by-then, the TWO 750% overdoses of the renally contraindicated convenience sedative with which the "crying dog"-sensitive ICU staff had plied him overnight) now life-essential IV fluids (8.5 hours into the prescribed 24-hour protocol that they charged me for). And/or: (2) When the day shift ICU "vet" arrived at 9am and decided a THIRD 750% overdose would be a strategic way do deal with a clearly already massively overdosed little 3.8kg, 15-year-old, dehydrated dog. Now WHY would any vet take such a decision? Well, for legal purposes, of course (remembering that the Venerable Dean Jon Huxley and the obviously not- so-new-broom Vice-Chancellor Pierre Venter, have all the money in the public purse to pay their top-tier external legal counsel . . . and by gum, there are enough of the buggers, if this site's analytics are anything to be guided by), I will precede the following by stating that these are my conclusions, made on the basis of the collation and evaluation of the information before me. That said, what I know of my readers is this: You are no intellectual slouches. Feel free to let me know if you can come up with any other conclusion from the information (complete with now numerous "receipts") that I have thus far presented, most especially here and here , and most tellingly of all, in today's expose. R emember, though, I held the ultimate evidence in my arms at 6pm on December 1 . . . and, some 45 minutes later, I let them take it (safely, for them) away from me, just like Harry's (the literal body of evidence) life had just been taken from him. Little Numerals that Tell A BIG Story The plan for Harry's manufactured exit is not so much written into the records, as it is revealed by the tampering with the logs. They lay bare the lead vet’s apparent plan that his life would come to an abrupt end by the pre-scheduled time of (well, they couldn't quite get consistency in the logs regarding the exact minute, but by the absolute latest time of) 17:00 hours i.e. 5pm . . . assumedly, the end of the day shift on December 1. Just in time to mark him "Deceased" and seal off the records of this catastrophically overdosed patient, before the next shift came on, saw his records, and someone started asking the immediately necessary, and certainly appropriate, questions. And those questions would (0R SHOULD ) have included , but would certainly not have been limited to: How long has this dog been in this state? Why hasn't any rescue and remediation protocol been undertaken? Why was he given yet ANOTHER administration of 50mg of Gabapentin at 09:00 hours after the preceding two during night shift? Why is he disconnected from his IV fluids? Who approved that and why? (And if they knew he'd starred in a multi-video student film festival that morning): Was he taken out of his cage and handled in this state? When did he last drink? Was he given any food before he entered this near-comatose state? Does the owner know of the overdoses and the state he's in? Have you filled in an incident report? Have any emergency specialists been called in for advice? and, no doubt, many more questions. OR . . . maybe not. It depends if the rot in that ICU is fully immersive, or if it's concentrated on Dr Stephanie Rigg's day shift and the ICU shift staff of the preceding (November 30) night. But none of those questions could be asked and none of that could happen. The day shift - led by "Dr" Rigg ("Steffi") - wasn't about to let it happen. Thus, the pre-timestamped, just before end-of-shift, Time of Death entered into the "Euthanasia Authorisation" form that they had all queued up for me long before I ever arrived at that Godforsaken facility that fated December 1 afternoon.
by Jordan Kelly 17 February 2026
Harry WAS A Marked Dog. I Had Hoped Massey Vet Staff Couldn't Have Been Any More Wicked Than They'd Already Been Caught Out Being. But YES , Actually, They COULD . 
by Jordan Kelly 15 February 2026
This Is What Happens When Massey Thinks THEY Own Your Dog & Can Do With Him As They Please (You Just Pay the Invoice) At This Appalling, Unaccountable Veterinary House of Horrors (LATEST PROOF OF 'LAB RAT' TREATMENT HERE )
by Jordan Kelly 12 February 2026
FOR LATEST INVESTIGATION FINDINGS: GO HERE . My Precious Little Boy Died Needlessly, In Intense Physical, Mental & Emotional Agony . . . After Massive Overdosing, Intense Cruelty & Intentionally False Diagnosis by Massey 'Vet' (So Called) to Enable His 'Disposal' After Lab Rat-Style Experimentation
by Jordan Kelly 11 February 2026
While my focus is on the 750% overdosing of my precious little dog, Harry, with an unauthorised, contraindicated convenience sedative, his conversion from patient to live specimen, and the subsequent destruction of evidence (HIM), Massey’s focus is on deploying a taxpayer-funded legal hit squad to 'profile' me.
by Jordan Kelly 8 February 2026
An Expert Contributed Commentary (FOR LATEST INVESTIGATION FINDINGS, GO HERE .)
by Jordan Kelly 31 January 2026
From Lethal Incompetence and Malpractice . . . to Withholding of Life-Saving Corrective Action in Favour of Utilisation As A Teaching Aid . . . to A Fraudulent Diagnosis . . . to A Coerced 'Euthanasia' to Destroy the Evidence . . . to Management Malfeasance At the Highest Levels
by Jordan Kelly 31 January 2026
FOR LATEST INVESTIGATION FINDINGS, GO HERE : (Note to Readers: Nil response to the below. Looks like the New VC's modus operandi is not about to differ from the institutional stonewalling of the entrenched Massey suits . . . with the culture he has inherited obviously causing him no concern.) Plea to New Vice-Chancellor, Pierre Venter, for Cultural Change & Institutional Integrity in the Interests of Pets, Owners & the Ethics Instilled In Future Veterinarians
30 January 2026
Bring It On, Huxley, Dean of 'Veterinary School'. Exposing the Realities of Your 'School' Is the Hill I've Chosen to Die on. So It's the Courage of My Convictions vs the Size of Your Legal Budget.
Show More