UPDATED: Calling Veterinary Council of NZ CEO Iain McLachlan: You've Been Hiding In the Shadows for Too Long. NO MORE.
Jordan Kelly • 9 June 2026

The Spotlight Is Back on You, McLachlan. Where It Should Have Stayed.

UPDATED: 


In receiving the below “response” to my challenge to Veterinary Council (VCNZ) CEO Iain McLachlan to emerge from the shadows and show himself, I want to take the opportunity to offer what I genuinely hope will be valuable insight and tuition to not only any fellow pet owner who has ever sought, or may need to in the future seek, accountability from the veterinary profession . . . but, coming back to the broader function and focus of The Customer & The Constituent, I want also to offer the same guidance to anyone anywhere seeking recognition of serious issues and honest, effective redress.

 

This is an article I wrote a year ago: How Wellington REALLY Works: The '5 Ds'. A quick read will be instructive to start with. Then, if you  scroll down and read McLachlan’s response before my reply to him, you’ll see the obvious deployment of (the first  two “Ds” (1) Delay, and (2) Defer. That’s already been going on, as you will read in my reply, since January.

 

But if you read more deeply into the intent behind McLachlan’s three brief paragraphs, you’ll see the third and fifth "D's" i.e. (3) Deny and (5) Dismiss lurking there, too.


That is, the patronising, “I recognise that you have been carrying this for some time, and I am truly sorry for your loss of Harry”, clearly doesn’t come from any place of genuine sympathy or empathy.


Had McLachlan been in the least honest, open and NOT coming from a place of needing to protect Massey, the phrasing would have been different. Only slightly different wording, but monumentally different in meaning. It would have been, "I am truly sorry for what happened to Harry." Notice, that more genuine phraseology wouldn't have compromised any investigation or complaint with any acknowledgement of anything other than "something happened to Harry". But even acknowledging that anything "happened" to Harry would have disallowed the intended "grieving pet owner not to be taken seriously" and the unspoken "owner who can't accept her dog had reached its use by date" re-frame.


Instead, McLachlan's chosen wording was a cunning but not clever sleight-of-hand; a disingenuous, and probably lawyer-directed endeavour to minimise ("Deny" the gravity and due weight of) the matter, and also, to reduce ("Dismiss") the seriousness with which the complainant themselves deserves to be taken . . . along with the unintended indication of the re-engineered manipulation of reality that will no doubt be at the core of how the VCNZ and Massey will work together to dismiss any complaints I might finally bring if ever the full list of names is released.

 

In the context of a matter like animal cruelty and a singular complainant, the "emotional, grieving pet owner" re-frame is a predictable strategy that hasn't placed heavy intellectual demand on the writer or their advisors, and it’s helped along by the distant, never-to-be-voiced, but clearly underlying inference of, "emotional female".

 

There are numerous other such manipulative "5D" textbook response "templates" in use by organisations like Massey and the VCNZ. But most of them have central strategies that are easy to spot once you've decoded a few. The key characteristic common to every single one of them is intense disingenuousness.

 

So, then, next question:  How do you respond when you’re up against a big piece of institutional machinery with “comms advisors” and both in-house and external legal advisors adding further to the already well-entrenched bureaucratic playbooks, and even individual administrators well-versed in the deployment of deflective and/or minimising template responses?

 

There is only one, and one only, counter-offence: You recognise the ploy, reject the re-framed narrative, call it out openly, and return the conversation to the matter at hand. Every time.

______________________________________________________

  

From: editor@consumeraffairswriter.com <editor@consumeraffairswriter.com> 
Sent: Friday, 12 June 2026 6:25 pm
To: 'Iain McLachlan' <iain@vetcouncil.org.nz>
Cc: 'Liam Shields' <liam@vetcouncil.org.nz>
Subject: RE: INVESTIGATION: Massey Veterinary ICU Staffing and Critical VCNZ Disclosure Failures [RE: Harry Kelly]

 

Dear Mr McLachlan

 

Your patronising opener, “I recognise that you have been carrying this for some time, and I am truly sorry for your loss of Harry”, is unwelcome . . . and as insulting as you intended it to be.

 

Albeit I recognise such manipulative re-framing is not beneath you, and is in fact intended to be strategic to your organisation’s “position”, I would nonetheless ask that you refrain from such reductive and patronising insults in future.

 

The “loss” of my dog is the direct result of a complexity of serious clinical, managerial, and ethical issues entrenched in the practices and culture of your conjoint organisation i.e. Massey University’s Veterinary “Teaching Hospital” aka Companion Animal “Hospital”.

 

I do not require your sympathy – which, in any case, is entirely disingenuous and farcical.

 

I DO require that you take the action you are mandated to take, to properly carry out the duties of your position, and in doing so, provide the New Zealand pet-owning public with the confidence that true accountability exists within the industry’s regulatory framework. Not only does it not currently, but in fact, the reverse is the case under your “leadership” and that of Liam Shields.

 

I recommend your focus remain on the severe, demonstrable lackings and ethical compromises of the organisation you "lead", and the honest and effective execution of your mandated role and duties, rather than narrative deflection and unwelcome familiarity.

 

I would also take this opportunity to point out that your response and your “position” has confirmed the most concerning aspect of the entire, ongoing, deep-rooted-in-cultural-issues matter:
 
That your 1.5% complaint prosecution rate is almost certainly achieved on the basis of re-framing even the most egregious, systemic and lethal cases of malpractice, misfeasance, animal cruelty, and criminal acts, as low-importance, grief-driven, “consumer complaints”.

 

Under your leadership, Mr McLachlan, the rot in the foundations of organisations like your conjoint partner, will persist – at great cost both to the New Zealand pet-owning public, and also to the levels of clinical competence and the ethical standards of the students trained at, and graduating from, Massey University’s Veterinary “Teaching Hospital”.

 

In the meantime, regarding your patronisation i.e. “I recognise that you have been carrying this for some time”: Indeed. And that infuriating reality is entirely, 100% attributable to your and Mr Shields’ collusion with the management of the Massey institution to ensure against the release of the identities of those that I seek to lay formal complaints about to your (albeit, conjoint) organisations.

 

Thus, I would bring you back to the central questions of my June 9 email, the answers to which are necessary to enable me to lay the required series of complaints in the first instance – with the central information requirement (which I have been pursuing through you, and in the face of your unkept commitments), being the provision to me of the entire, uncompressed, unsummarised, unredacted list of licensed operatives who were in any way involved with my dog’s case.

 

I await this information from either yourself or Mr Shields, and again leave you with my previous communication’s comment i.e. that you almost certainly already possess the answers to these core questions, which are essential to the enabling of natural justice. Thus, I trust I will be receiving these from you without too much further delay . . . noting that my first communication to you to seek such core elements of information, to enable the laying of formal complaints, stretches back as far as January 2026.

 

On this note and regarding your closing statement, “The substantive questions you have raised are for Liam to address, and he will respond to you as necessary.” Yes, they ARE substantive questions, Mr McLachlan.

 

And ALL of them MUST, therefore, be considered “necessary” . . . with a timely, complete, honest and transparent response to EACH of these questions.

 

Yours sincerely
Jordan Kelly


 

From: Iain McLachlan <iain@vetcouncil.org.nz> 
Sent: Friday, 12 June 2026 4:52 pm
To: editor@consumeraffairswriter.com
Cc: Liam Shields <liam@vetcouncil.org.nz>
Subject: Re: INVESTIGATION: Massey Veterinary ICU Staffing and Critical VCNZ Disclosure Failures [RE: Harry Kelly]

 

Dear Ms Kelly

 

Thank you for writing. I recognise that you have been carrying this for some time, and I am truly sorry for your loss of Harry.

 

Liam Shields acts on my behalf in complaints-related matters, and his responses to you represent the Vet Council's position. That is not a deflection, it reflects the proper allocation of responsibilities within our organisation. My involvement in individual correspondence is not appropriate.

 

The substantive questions you have raised are for Liam to address, and he will respond to you as necessary.

 

Yours sincerely

 


Iain McLachlan

He | Him

Kaiwhakahaere Matua me Pouroki | CEO & Registrar 


Te Kaunihera Rata Kararehe o Aotearoa | Veterinary Council of New Zealand

Level 6, Midland Chambers, 45 Johnston Street, Wellington 6011 | New Zealand

P 04 473 9600 | DDI 04 894 3705 | W www.vetcouncil.org.nz 

 


From: editor@consumeraffairswriter.com
Sent: Tuesday, 9 June 2026 7:38 pm
To: 'Iain McLachlan' <iain@vetcouncil.org.nz>
Cc: 'Liam Shields' <liam@vetcouncil.org.nz>
Subject: INVESTIGATION: Massey Veterinary ICU Staffing and Critical VCNZ Disclosure Failures [RE: Harry Kelly]


Mr McLachlan
 
You have been hiding in the shadows for too long on this matter of extreme gravity – now drawing, rightly – significant national and international attention.

 

As of course you will have seen, my reply to Liam Shields’s totally inadequate “response” of yesterday (regarding my request for your Council’s provision of the names of any and all licensed individuals involved in any capacity with my dog’s case), was published here and here.

 

From now on, I require that you respond to my communications personally. If Mr Shields continues to cover for you, I will continue to respond to you as my primary addressee. As a practising lawyer holding a current New Zealand Law Society practising certificate, you are personally bound by professional obligations of transparency and integrity that your subordinate is not. You cannot hide behind a non-lawyer deputy to evade answering questions that directly engage your own professional conduct – particularly while a Law Society complaint against you is active.

 

On which note, I have three outstanding questions that I wish to be answered individually and separately from the overarching issue of the continually withheld names – and whether or not Massey University’s Companion Animal Hospital’s Intensive “Care” Unit is staffed by any licensed veterinarians overnight.

 

To cut off at the pass your deflection efforts by directing me back to Massey for the answers to these questions, I remind you, that you were apparently quite happy to accept these two clinicians’ names as being the only ones relevant to the laying of any formal complaints. Of course, I have made clear that that is unacceptable, and I await Mr Shields’s response with the FULL list, so as to ensure the conduct of proper and full natural justice . . . and that such may not continue to be prevented as it has been for now six months and counting.

 

But since you accepted these two names at all and in any case, regardless of the requirement for the full list, I require you to answer the following questions yourself – as they are directly relevant to the formal complaints that will be laid regarding these two operators specifically:

 

Question One: Massey's response states that Dr Steffi Jalava's role is "primarily clinical associated with clinical teaching of the BVSc5 student cohort”. Does that mean it was by her own decision that she converted Harry to a teaching resource? (A straightforward YES or NO, will suffice. Answer with a checkbox beside this question, if you will otherwise find it difficult to provide me with a straightforward answer. For the avoidance of doubt, any failure to select a binary option or any attempt to dilute this question with narrative deflection will be formally logged and published as an administrative refusal to answer a direct question.)

 

Question Two: Since the only "treatment" Harry required was the 24-hour rehydration that was prescribed upon his admission and that I was charged for, but that he was disconnected from after 8.5 hours – what was the specific "treatment" that Dr Anita Shea oversaw? (A simple bullet point list with the list of “treatments” and the specific reason or objective for each “treatment” will suffice. Please indicate clearly if Harry’s various forms of utilisation for student observation and/or student manipulation and participation and/or filming comprised any of these “treatments”.)

 

Question Three: Which of these two practitioners, or if not either of them, then who specifically approved the third dose (i.e. 9am) sedative/s to Harry, and any subsequent to that? With regard to the 9am administration of sedative/s, what was the relationship of this to the student activities and filming of him that commenced 2.5 hours later? And what was the purpose of any subsequent sedative administrations?


I look forward to the answers that, of course, you would surely already have. You cannot reasonably expect me to believe that the strategy behind the provision of these two names (and only to date these two names) has not been the subject of considerable discussion with Massey University’s Veterinary School Dean Jon Huxley and others, including Massey’s legal counsel.

 

Notwithstanding, I look forward to your answers . . . but not “in due course”, Mr McLachlan, per your now four-month-old February 26 email. The variations between our respective definitions of that undertaking make it untenable here. In fact, given that you surely already know the answers to the above three questions, there is no reason not to provide them by return email.

 

In closing, let me take the opportunity to be 100% clear about the following: I do not expect – and will not accept – any reply to this email as being a substitute for the clear question I asked Mr Liam Shields in my June 8 email to him. These two matters are interlocked, but at the same time, separate.

 

Sincerely 
Jordan Kelly 


Other News, Reviews & Commentary

by Jordan Kelly • 8 October 2026
Unsuspecting Pet Owners Leaving Their Beloved Pets in the 'Care' of this Veterinary 'Hospital' Need to Know the Truth About What Goes On Behind Closed Doors In This 'Teaching' Establishment. Preferably Before Your Pet Becomes A Body In A Bag. 
by Jordan Kelly • 26 September 2026
The Ministry of Education Charlatans Ain't Got Nuthin' on Massey's Director of 'Governance and Assurance'
by Jordan Kelly • 22 September 2026
'Student Education': The Happy, Perfectly Viable Little Dog (& Paying Client's Pet) These Cretins Tortured, Overdosed, Killed & Lied About Having Done So THREE MONTHS IN WAITING FOR A RESPONSE FROM JON 'WHOLLY UNFOUNDED' HUXLEY AND MISSING-IN-ACTION VICE-CHANCELLOR PIERRE VENTER.
by Jordan Kelly • 9 September 2026
And A Reminder to Massey: I Will Continue Exposing the Dark Underbelly of Your Despicable Institution Until Every Pet Owner in New Zealand Is Warned & Every Potential Student Is Made Aware of Precisely What You 'Teach' _______________________________________________________________
by Jordan Kelly • 9 September 2026
Weak, Collusive or Both? MPI 'Investigators' Had A 342-Page Dossier of Hard Evidence (& Hundreds of Other Documents) FOR MONTHS . . . And Suddenly Handed It Off to the Demonstrably Collusive Vet Council, with One Weak-Willed Sentence and No Explanation. So . . . What Happened, Mr Director General?
by Jordan Kelly • 9 September 2026
MORAL INJURY OR EQUALLY EVIL? Massey Vet Students on December 1: Were You Deceived . . . or Participants In the Deception? (PART ONE) UPDATE 9.9.26 (For any intending student, parent funding a student, or careers advisor, wanting to ensure quality and ethical veterinary education, here's your warning): The Massey "neurologist" and veterinary "educator"who apparently (or conveniently) can't tell a "demented" dog from a catastrophically (contraindicated) sedative-overdosed dog, has been named: "Dr" Anita Shea. Shea's apparent (or convenient) inability to discern between a "sedated" dog and a "demented" dog, with said dog on a table in front of her, greatly assisted fellow "educator" " Dr" Steffi Jalava in her prolonged and intensive coercion of the owner for Harry's immediate (and as it later transpired, totally without cause) destruction, following Jalava's utilisation of him as a live teaching prop and as student "educational" video content . The author (and owner of the precious NON-"demented" little papillon who was sent to a totally unnecessary death based on Shea's "diagnostic skills" and collusion with Jalava) vehemently urges ALL young persons seeking an ethical and competent education in veterinary science, to look elsewhere for your studies.
by Jordan Kelly • 8 September 2026
UPDATE 8.9.26: The Massey "neurologist" who apparently (or conveniently) can't tell a "demented" dog from a catastrophically (contraindicated) sedative-overdosed dog, has been named: She is "Dr" Anita Shea. Shea's apparent inability to discern the distinction between "sedated" and "demented" with said dog on a table in front of her, greatly assisted "Dr" Steffi Jalava in her prolonged and intensive coercion of the owner for Harry's immediate (and as it later transpired, totally without cause) destruction. The author (and owner of the precious NON-"demented" little papillon who was sent to a totally unnecessary death based on Shea's "diagnostic skills") vehemently urges all pet owners to avoid any contact with this "clinician" - who, in the author's opinion is incomprehensibly incompetent, or utterly monstrous. Or perhaps, both. THIRD UPDATE: Since the original January 16 publication of this article, and despite Massey's ongoing efforts to obscure the identities of those involved, the day shift clinician who delivered the fraudulent diagnosis and administered the lethal injection has been identified by her full name: Dr Steffi Maja Jalava. She is far from the only person culpable for the torture, fraud, and fully unnecessary termination of Harry's life . However, Jalava's completely false "terminal" "neurological" "diagnosis" and "prognosis" delivered throughout two hours of aggressive coercion — after "teaching" staff had finished their unauthorised and unspeakably cruel utilisation of Harry in student activities and filming — were the grounds on which I was duped into signing a "euthanasia" "consent" form . . . and worse still, participating therefore in the wrongful killing of my own deeply beloved dog. The identities of the night shift veterinarian and ICU staff responsible for the overnight overdosing described in this article — the repeated, catastrophic levels of contraindicated administration of Gabapentin and Prevomax to a renally-compromised patient between approximately midnight and 9am on December 1, 2025 — remain unknown and actively withheld by Massey. If you were on duty in Massey's Companion Animal Hospital ICU on the night of November 30 into December 1, 2025, or if you have knowledge of who was, this investigation would like to hear from you. UPDATE TO READERS: Since writing this article, my continuing research has indicated that Harry was likely not only simply sedated (and massively so) for the sake of the ICU staff's convenience, but also to facilitate a multiplicity of training procedures to be conducted upon him - with the intention that the fronting clinician, "Steffi", would present him as requiring urgent "euthanasia" through a sudden natural decline in his condition. Unfortunately, for Massey management and personnel, I have not only my own memory of him standing strongly on his back legs in his ICU cage at midnight and reaching through the door for comfort, but also now a video of him actively "circling" on the ICU floor, just hours before he was presented to me in a flacid, semi-comatose state with no viable explanation other than some supposedly nature decline. UPDATE TO THE UPDATE : The above indications have not only since been confirmed , but what actually happened to Harry was far worse, and constituted much more than gross malpractice. My latest findings move the entire matter squarely into the category of malfeasance - both at the clinical level and at the highest levels of Massey's management. The Reckless Practice of 'Convenience Sedation' & the True Cost of Clinical Apathy
by Jordan Kelly • 8 September 2026
8.9.26 UPDATE: The Massey "neurologist" who apparently (or conveniently) can't tell a "demented" dog from a catastrophically (contraindicated) sedative-overdosed dog, has been named: She is "Dr" Anita Shea. Shea's apparent inability to discern the distinction between "sedated" and "demented" with said dog on a table in front of her, greatly assisted "Dr" Steffi Jalava in her prolonged and intensive coercion of the owner for Harry's immediate (and as it later transpired, totally without cause) destruction. The author (and owner of the precious NON-"demented" little papillon who was sent to a totally unnecessary death based on Shea's "diagnostic skills") vehemently urges all pet owners to avoid any contact with this "clinician" - who, in the author's opinion is incomprehensibly incompetent, or utterly monstrous. Or perhaps, both. UPDATE: Since the original January 31 publication of this article, and despite Massey's ongoing efforts to obscure the identities of those involved , the clinician who delivered the fraudulent diagnosis and administered the lethal injection has been identified by her full name: Dr Steffi Maja Jalava. She is far from the only person culpable for the torture, fraud, and fully unnecessary termination of Harry's life . However, Jalava's completely false "terminal" "neurological" "diagnosis" and "prognosis" delivered throughout two hours of aggressive coercion - after " teaching" staff had finished their unauthorised and unspeakably cruel utilisation of Harry in student activities and filming - were the grounds on which I was duped into signing a "euthanasia" "consent" form . . . and worse still, participating therefore in the wrongful killing of my own deeply beloved dog . 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 • 8 September 2026
An Expert Contributed Commentary UPDATE 8.9.26: The Massey "neurologist" who apparently (or conveniently) can't tell a "demented" dog from a catastrophically (contraindicated) sedative-overdosed dog, has been named: She is "Dr" Anita Shea. Shea's apparent (or convenient) inability to discern between a "sedated" dog and a "demented" dog, with said dog on a table in front of her, greatly assisted " Dr" Steffi Jalava in her prolonged and intensive coercion of the owner for Harry's immediate (and as it later transpired, totally without cause) destruction, following Jalava's utilisation of him as a live teaching prop and as student "educational" video content . The author (and owner of the precious NON-"demented" little papillon who was sent to a totally unnecessary death based on Shea's "diagnostic skills" and collusion with Jalava) vehemently urges ALL pet owners to avoid any contact with these "clinicians" - who, in the author's opinion are incomprehensibly incompetent but worse and even more so, utterly monstrous.
by Jordan Kelly • 8 September 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.
Show More