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?

The Anatomy of A Filthy, Multi-Institutional Cover-Up:

Clinical Sabotage, Intentional Catastrophic Overdosing, Torture for Covert Unauthorised 'Student Education', Commercialisation of Paying Client's Pet for Video Productions, Fraudulent Diagnoses, Coerced Termination Under False Pretences, Multiple Statutory Violations & Regulatory Collusion (And More) in the Killing of Harry Kelly

The clinical execution of Harry Kelly at Massey University’s Companion Animal Hospital (CAH) on December 1, 2025 was neither a tragedy of unpreventable natural decline nor an innocent clinical error. NO, it was NONE of that.

The primary records (even those that have eventually been prised out of Massey after their doctoring and redactions thereof) establish a sequence of events transitioning from gross malpractice to commercial utilisation (involving active, wilful abuse and torturous treatment) with multiple atrocities all the way through to active evidence liquidation (i.e. the beloved pet's planned killing achieved by a fraudulent diagnosis / prognosis by "Dr" Anita Shea and intensive coercion of the owner by "Dr" Steffi Jalava).

When Harry - a 3.6kg, 15-year-old blind papillon was admitted on the evening of November 30 2025 exclusively for an emergency rehydration protocol while traveling during a period of extremely hot weather - Massey possessed his full clinical baseline. He'd been there just a few months prior, for dental surgery.

And when the Ministry of Primary Industries' Director General Ray Smith ordered an immediate investigation after being personally furnished by Harry's owner with photographic evidence of his utilisation and abuse in student activities, DG Smith did so with good reason. Very good reason indeed.

A Literal Mountain of Undeniable Evidence . . . Provided Directly to MPI In A Painstakingly Well-Organised Manner

When Harry's owner produced a 342-page dossier of granular clinical evidence, alongside hundreds of other documents demonstrating Massey veterinary and university management's active cover-up and the directly conflicted Veterinary Council's collusion with Massey's top brass, the assigned MPI investigators had even more reason to get to the bottom of the whole sordid goings-on . . . including in the interests of other pets and owners affected by what was clearly systemic rot in the foundations of the institution.

The huge wad of albeit highly organised documentation also included a 13-page collation of key data from Harry's just 12 days' prior (and other then-recent) independent veterinary records, demonstrating that notwithstanding his urgent need for rehydration on the night of his fateful admission to Massey's veterinary "hospital", he was indeed a vibrant, active, NON-"demented" little dog . . . and one much-loved by his owner. (Notwithstanding his owner had been a thorn in the side of the management of the Massey facility on various occasions for fearlessly drawing negligent and unacceptable practices to their attention, albeit fruitlessly.)

The data in those 13 pages of very recent independent veterinary records including up to just 12 days prior to his killing at Massey) - dated October 2025 and November 18 2025 - proved without any doubt that Harry's baseline health was stable, he was fully, perfectly and actively ambulatory, there was NIL sign of the "dementia" and "terminal neurological disease" Massey's "Dr" Steffi Jalava and "Dr" Anita Shea used as the basis for the coercion of his owner to agree to sudden, unexpected, immediate "euthanasia" at Massey, on the spot, no second opinion, no negotiation.

Meantime, the owner's possession of Massey's own earlier clinical notations from July 2025 demonstrated Massey's own staff explicitly recorded that Gabapentin and opioids (the substances covertly used in massive quantities to immobilise and "dement" him) were contraindicated due to his severe sensitivity to them and profound sedation that had previously resulted from even light dosages of them.

Death Completely Unnecessary but Completely Intended . . . And Effectively & Cruelly Engineered (with Active Student Participation)

But . . . rather than executing a careful rehydration protocol, CAH staff subjected the patient to repeated, unconsented, and contraindicated mega-doses of Gabapentin and Maropitant (Prevomax).

This produced severe Central Nervous System (CNS) depression, profound hypotonia, and metabolic saturation.

When this pharmacological collapse manifested, as opposed to taking ethical, responsible and immediate emergency action, Massey "clinicians" instead disconnected the patient’s life-sustaining intravenous fluids, exploited the comatose animal as an instructional prop for multiple, invasive student "examinations" (including with equipment) and cell-phone filming, diagnosed the resulting drug-induced stupor as an inexplicable, irreversible "neurological crisis/dementia", and engineered an emergency "euthanasia" to permanently eliminate the evidence.

When this substantive animal welfare dossier was submitted to the Ministry for Primary Industries (MPI) and the Veterinary Council of New Zealand (VCNZ), both regulatory authorities deployed a mutual bureaucratic avoidance mechanism (first the VCNZ and ultimately also the MPI, using a circular "loop" of feigned, but in actuality, obstructed accountability):

Massey had redacted all names throughout the entire (additionally heavily doctored and redacted "Clinical Summary" that was first sanitised during a period in the possession of Massey's Legal team), making it impossible to lay a complaint with the Veterinary Council (VCNZ), which requires the names of any clinician who is the subject of a complaint (the VCNZ does not prosecute organisations or clinics, only individually registered veterinarians).

While the VCNZ has full power to compel Massey to disclose all redacted names (which international standards dictated by Massey's own accrediting bodies expect), for months it declined to do so, throwing up as many obstructions as possible for Harry's owner in her own investigative measures to determine (a) the identities of those responsible, and (b) the contents of further withheld, post-humously changed and redacted information. (Critically, internal correspondence reveals that on the same day Dean Jon Huxley issued a legal threat forbidding the owner from raising concerns outside the VCNZ complaints process, he sent a private email directly to VCNZ CEO Iain McLachlan, Deputy Registrar Liam Shields, and VCNZ Advisor Seton Butler - who concurrently served as an adjunct lecturer at Massey - reassuring the regulator that the complaint was "wholly unfounded", albeit without any detail as to exactly which of the numerous component issues were "unfounded").

Enter the Ministry of Primary Industries . . . at the behest of none other than its Director General, Ray Smith . . . and the owner's subsequent provision of document after document of hard evidence, along with correspondence directly with Massey's Director of Governance and Assurance (and Risk), Jodie Banner, demonstrating statutory obstruction, bad faith, falsification and scrubbing of records (and more) . . . and further, the owner's provision of correspondence obtained clearly demonstrating the direct collusion between the VCNZ's Chief Executive and lawyer by profession (now under active Law Society investigation), Iain McLachlan, and Massey's Dean of Head of the School of "Veterinary Science", Jon Huxley over what has since been revealed plainly as the clinical abuse, commercial utilisation, and engineered killing of little Harry.

Sitting on this mountain of requested evidence for three months without any further communication with, or questions of, Harry's owner, the "investigators", Peter Govers and Emma Stephenson (a Massey alumna) suddenly sent a brief, terse email indicating the abdication of its statutory enforcement duties under the Animal Welfare Act 1999 by referring the matter to the VCNZ as, apparently, a mere conduct complaint. To be noted, the "investigators" were fully appraised of the collusive relationship, actions and multiple points of conflict of interest between Massey's and the VCNZ's top-most brass.

Multiple, Suppressed 'Smoking Guns' In Which MPI Apparently Suddenly Has No Interest

The documented paper trail reveals two inadvertent administrative admissions that expose core components of the institutional strategy:

1. The Controlled Drugs Register Admission:  When Director of Governance and Assurance Jodie Banner was formally requested under the Official Information Act to provide the Controlled Drugs Register (CDR) ledger to balance the administered sedatives milligram-for-milligram, she responded that the hospital was not required to log any substance in that register other than the final lethal injection.

This is an extraordinary revelation she probably hadn't thought through the implications of having made (given that it was made in order to "demonstrate" the owner's lack of right to such recorded information i.e. because it "does not exist"). That is, Massey maintains zero Controlled Drug audit logs for the off-label, unconsented, compounding sedation administered during the overnight shift, operating an intensive care environment devoid of traceable pharmaceutical accountability. (Read here, another 'The Customer'  reader's experience with the undisclosed, dangerous over-sedation of her dog with the same substance.)

2. The 2pm Pre-Determined 'Euthanasia' Decision:  In the administrative disclosures subsequently and painstakingly prised out of Jodie Banner through persistent, tenacious and repeated Official Information Act and Privacy Act requests, she latterly stated that the decision to "euthanase" Harry had been made at 2pm on December 1, 2025.

But at 2pm, Harry's owner was not at the facility. Even more incriminating is the fact that, in an earlier phone call at approximately 11am, the owner explicitly refused to consent to any termination over the telephone given the claimed sudden (and completely out of the blue and extraordinary) decline in Harry's condition, stating that she would evaluate Harry in person.

The owner did not arrive on site until hours later having to make a long drive to return to Massey, where she was subjected to a prolonged and intensive in-person coercion lasting up to two hours, and did not concede to signing the form until after the time shown on the fraudulently pre-time-dated 4.53pm "euthanasia consent" form, which even then, she posthumously discovered had the name, NOT of the vet who conducted the coercion or the chemical killing (and, as it turned out, had been the tutor to have used Harry in her student activities that day i.e. "Dr" Steffi Jalava), but rather the very young, freshly graduated, "Dr" Stephanie Rigg i.e. the intaking vet of the previous night.

The institutional record stating that euthanasia (which the data would later demonstrate was not a "euthanasia" at all) was decided upon at 2pm, confirms that Massey’s clinical hierarchy had ordered the termination of a private client’s pet hours before obtaining the owner's signature - with the use of the previous night's vet's name on the authorisation form remaining fully unexplained (but seemingly indicating a possible earmarking of Harry for student activities and subsequent disposal, upon actual intake the night prior).

Statutory and Regulatory Schedule of Breaches

The following schedule cross-references primary hospital logs, laboratory print-outs, internal metadata, and official communications against the Animal Welfare Act 1999 and the VCNZ Code of Professional Conduct for Veterinarians . . . all of which were presented as primary-state information to the Ministry of Primary Industries' "investigators".

1. Animal Welfare Act 1999: Statutory Offences

• Section 10: Breach of Obligation to Meet Physical and Health Needs

• Statutory Mandate: The person in charge of an animal must ensure that the physical, health, and behavioural needs of the animal are met in accordance with good practice and scientific knowledge.
  
  
• Documented Evidence of Breaches: Harry was admitted at approximately 9pm on Sunday, November 30 2025 specifically for rehydration, presenting with severe dehydration and an acute-on-chronic creatinine spike of 312 µmol/L (elevated from a 92 µmol/L baseline 57 days prior). At 8.38am on December 1, 2025, staff permanently disconnected his IV fluid delivery (15ml/hr order) just 8.5 hours into a prescribed 24-hour protocol.

• Clinical & Legal Commentary: The extraordinary recorded clinical rationale for disconnection - that the IV line "keeps tangling" -is contradicted by Invoice #610997, which billed the client $198.38 for a specialised MILA Large Dura Flow Coil anti-tangling extension set. Discontinuing fluid support in a severely dehydrated senior patient with compromised renal clearance (as previously diagnosed by Massey itself) while simultaneously administering renally-cleared sedatives, with the resultant cumulative and potentially lethal toxicity, constitutes a failure to provide for the animal’s foundational physical and physiological needs. To say the least.

• Section 11: Breach of Obligation to Alleviate Pain and Distress

• Statutory Mandate: The person in charge of an animal must take all reasonable steps to ensure that the animal does not suffer unreasonable or unnecessary pain or distress.

• Documented Evidence of Breaches: Clinical notes record that between 12am (midnight) and 2am, Harry was "constantly vocalising". At 11.22am, neurological notes record him "barking continuously with head and neck extended dorsally" and exhibiting pain upon pressure (during the multiple, including highly invasive, student "examinations") over the calvarium and cranial cervical spine. High-resolution photographic stills (IMG_9882, IMG_9889) confirm facial contortion, ocular distress, and unexplained reddish-brown epistaxis(nasal bleeding) around his muzzle that had NOT been present at admission.
  
  
• Clinical & Legal Commentary: Rather than addressing the psychological terror of a blind, owner-dependent dog stranded in an unfamiliar ICU cage, staff administered chemical immobilisation. Furthermore, when respiratory depression (shallow panting, rate 144/min) and toxic accumulation manifested, staff failed to administer reversal agents or therapeutic flushes, maintaining the animal in the unalleviated state of metabolic crisis into which they had chemically engineered him.

To be noted, the penalties for breaching Individuals include a fine of up to $50,000, imprisonment for a period of up to 12 months, or a combination i.e. both a fine and imprisonment. Penalties for Bodies Corporate (Businesses/Institutions/Agencies/Companies) include a fine of up to $250,000.

QUESTION TO READERS: Is this why the MPI investigators engineered a way out of completing the investigation?

NOTE FROM HARRY'S OWNER TO 'DR' STEFFI JALAVA, 'DR' ANITA SHEA, AND THE YET-TO-BE-NAMED 'CLINICAL' STAFF  (CURRENTLY UNDER ACTIVE REDACTION BY MASSEY UNIVERSITY): I look forward to our day in Court together, all in due course.

• Section 12 & Section 14: Animal Welfare Offences and Ill-Treatment

• Statutory Mandate: Prohibits the ill-treatment of animals, defined as causing an animal to suffer unreasonable or unnecessary pain or distress.
  
  
• Documented Evidence of Breaches: Administration of Gabapentin (up to 300mg cumulative load across an 8-hour window) and Maropitant (7.2mg within 20 minutes) to a 3.6kg patient with documented renal compromise (Creatinine 312 µmol/L, Urea 35.9 mmol/L).
  
  
• Clinical & Legal Commentary: Gabapentin is 100% renally cleared; administering rates of up to 750% of the safe clinical ceiling into a biological system with compromised excretion pathways constitutes chemical toxicity.
  
  Administering double the 24-hour ceiling of Maropitant concurrently potentiates central nervous system depression.
  
  Subjecting a compromised patient to forced pharmacological saturation constitutes severe ill-treatment under the Act.

To be noted, under Section 25 of the Act, offences against Section 12 or Section 14 carry significant criminal penalties upon conviction:

• Individuals: Imprisonment for up to 12 months, a fine of up to $50,000, or both.
  
  
• Bodies Corporate (Companies/Instititutions/Organisations): A fine of up to $250,000.

QUESTION TO READERS:  Is this also why the MPI investigators engineered a way out of completing the investigation?

NOTE FROM HARRY'S OWNER TO 'DR' STEFFI JALAVA, 'DR' ANITA SHEA, AND YET-TO-BE-NAMED 'CLINICAL' STAFF  (CURRENTLY UNDER ACTIVE REDACTION BY MASSEY UNIVERSITY): Again, I look forward to our day in Court together, all in due course.

• Part 6, Section 80 & Section 83: Unauthorised Research, Testing, and Teaching on Animals

• Statutory Mandate: Requires that any manipulation of a live animal for teaching purposes must be carried out in accordance with a code of ethical conduct approved by the Director-General and authorised by an Animal Ethics Committee (AEC). (Massey - in the context of refusing to acknowledge Harry's utilisation in owner-unauthorised, invasive, multiple-student activities and filming commercialisation - has again inadvertently revealed its non-observance of this legal requirement also, stating that no Animal Ethics Committee approval was sought or exists.)

• Documented Evidence: Massey admitted to filming at least eight instructional training videos of Harry between 10.38am and 11.40am i.e. while he was in a state of severe, visible pharmacological collapse (e.g. IMG_9882 "forced mobility under sedation"; IMG_9885 "vestibulo-ocular reflex testing"). Massey continues to withhold six of these videos of the owner's own dog, from the owner, claiming that it would compromise the privacy of another individual / other individuals, despite the ready availability, most especially to a well-equipped university, of basic pixelation software.

• Clinical & Legal Commentary: A private, fee-paying ICU patient admitted for medical stabilisation cannot legally be converted into an institutional teaching prop without explicit, informed owner consent and AEC ethical coverage. Extracting a comatose animal from an incubator, disconnecting him from the IV fluids for which he was solely admitted and for which his owner was charged in full (i.e. for the entire but unadministered 24-hour provision), forcing ambulation, intentionally allowing him to fall vertically while catastrophically sedated, physically forcing open eyelids, and suspending him high above head-level by one hand (seemingly for entertainment purposes) for handheld smartphone filming violates Part 6 of the Act.

To be noted, penalties for individuals who commit these specific offences under Section 119, face up to six months in prison, a fine up to $25,000, or both. Bodies corporate face fines up to $125,000.

QUESTION TO READERS: Again, Is this why the MPI investigators engineered a way out of completing the investigation?

NOTE FROM HARRY'S OWNER TO 'DR' STEFFI JALAVA, 'DR' ANITA SHEA, AND YET-TO-BE-NAMED 'CLINICAL' STAFF (CURRENTLY UNDER ACTIVE REDACTION BY MASSEY UNIVERSITY): And again, I look forward to our day in Court together, all in due course.

2. VCNZ Code of Professional Conduct: Regulatory Breaches

• Principle 1: Protecting Animal Welfare and Alleviating Suffering
  
  
• Code Requirement: Veterinarians must make animal welfare their primary consideration in all professional activities.
  
  
• Documented Evidence of Breaches: Harry was subjected to unnecessary physical and neurological manipulations and invasions for student "educational" benefit and active participation (spinal extensions, calvarium pressure, vestibulo-ocular testing with fingernails penetrating his scalp to force his eyes open, forced floor stumbling movement, unnatural vertical posture while under catastrophic levels of sedation, stomach palpations, dangerous overhead single-hand-hold suspension, dental grading) between 10.38am and 11.40am while deprived of IV fluids and suffering from acute dehydration and toxicosis caused by clinician's catastrophic, medically unnecessary and repeated doses of a specifically contraindicated sedative.

• Breach Determination: The attending clinicians prioritised pedagogical utility and diagnostic demonstration over patient resuscitation, pain (as caused by the clinicians and students themselves) alleviation and this paying client's pet's very survival of their "care" and "treatment".

• Principle 2: Informed Consent and Client Communication

• Code Requirement: Veterinarians must ensure clients are fully informed regarding treatment plans, risks, prognosis, and the true clinical state of the patient.

• Documented Evidence:

1. Zero disclosure was made to the owner during the 45-minute morning phone call (11am) or the two-hour in-person consult regarding the fact that Harry had received 200-300mg of Gabapentin and potentiating sedatives or that he was sedated or that he had been in any way subjected to pharmaceutical administrations.
2. The clinician misrepresented Harry's (covertly sedated) flaccid, obtunded state to the uninformed owner as a spontaneous, terminal "neurological event" and "dementia".
3. The EzyVet system records that the "euthanasia" decision was made internally at 2pm - hours before the owner signed the Euthanasia Authorisation form (and even then, the form had been falsely and prematurely time-stamped as 4.53pm, when the event took place significantly later, as evidenced by the 7.20pm time of invoice payment).

• Breach Determination: Procuring signature consent by misrepresenting drug-induced stupor as a natural neurological collapse constitutes fraudulent misrepresentation. Consent obtained through the suppression of pharmacological data is legally void.

To be noted:  At 1.13am, Harry's weight was recorded as 3.60kg. By 7.52am on 1 December, following just minimal (and grossly inadequate) fluid push, his weight had nonetheless come back up to 4kg - a gain of 400ml of fluid overnight, proving he was a responsive, rehydratable patient, NOT a "terminal" case. AT ALL.

• Principle 4: Professional Integrity and Record-Keeping

• Code Requirement: Veterinarians must maintain contemporaneous, complete, and accurate clinical records that reflect reality and do not mislead.

• Documented Evidence of Breaches:

1. December 1 Data Black-Out: IDEXX and ABL90 machine-generated diagnostic logs are present for November 30, 2025 up to 9.17pm, but cease entirely on December 1, 2025, despite manual notes claiming active monitoring. After the owner's repeated statutory attempts to determine why these were not included with the records that comprised the previous night's logs, was simply advised - without explanation - "these cannot be provided because they do not exist".
2. Field-Level Audit Delta: The EzyVet Patient Change Log documents that the recorded time of death (16.54 / 4.54pm) was manually accessed on December 3, 2025 at 2.44pm and overwritten with "0:00" (Midnight), actively obfuscating any potential future auditing of records.
3. Administrative Collisions: The system simultaneously triggered mutually exclusive "Deceased" and "Discharged By" statuses (in what appears to have been a panicked and rushed attempt to delete Harry from the clinical shift hand-over records for the incoming shift), alongside billing updates at 4.56pm and 7.20pm (Record 636969, i.e. posthumously increasing consumable quantities by 2.5x to inflate the client's invoice).

• Breach Determination: Altering timestamps, backdating status workflows to match shift changes, and purging objective digital logs violates the foundational tenets of professional veterinary record integrity.
  
  It is also a chargeable offence under the New Zealand Crimes Act 1961 Section 258: Altering, concealing, destroying, or reproducing documents with intent to deceive.
  
  Definition of a "document": Under the Act, a "document" explicitly includes any information stored or processed by a computer or digital device. Digital logs, timestamps, and workflow histories fit this definition. If these digital records are falsified, backdated, or deleted ("purged") to cover up a mistake, misrepresent details to a client/regulatory body, or secure a financial advantage by deception, it carries a maximum penalty of up to 10 years' imprisonment. Alternative cyber-specific charges: If the records were accessed and altered without proper authority, it can also fall under Section 252 (Accessing computer system without authorisation).

• Principle 6: Safe and Rational Use of Medications

• Code Requirement: Veterinarians must prescribe and administer medicines based on sound clinical judgment, recognised pharmacokinetics, and individual patient contraindications. (To be noted, the Dean of the Veterinary School himself has demonstrated himself to be completely, dangerously and lethally ignorant of basic veterinary pharmacokinetics, read here.)
  
  
• Documented Evidence of Breaches: Administering Gabapentin to a patient with confirmed renal compromise (Creatinine 312 µmol/L) after Massey’s own July 2025 records explicitly cautioned against it. Jodie Banner's OIA admission confirmed that no Controlled Drug Register entry was made for any sedative given to Harry, bypassing statutory tracking under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975 and Medicines Act 1981.

• Breach Determination: Bypassing established pharmaceutical safety margins, ignoring explicit patient contraindications, and failing to maintain legally mandated drug ledgers violates professional dispensing and prescribing mandates.

The Regulatory Machinery & the Collusive 'Closed Loop'

As has been made clear in granular detail to the Ministry of Primary Industries, there is no shortage of evidence on which to convict Massey management, "clinicians" and other involved staff on these (and almost certainly, other, yet-to-be-uncovered) components of this multi-faceted atrocity . . . an atrocity which, at least in part, is also likely covertly befalling other private clients' pets admitted to Massey's "Companion Animal Hospital".

Indeed, the deliberate inaction of New Zealand's peak animal welfare organisation doesn't stem from a lack of evidence; it stems from (a) the structural impossibility of the institutions investigating themselves, (b) the unthinkable fact that, if rightly convicted by MPI's "investigation", this would open up the question of the legal penalties detailed in this article, both at an institutional and at an individual level, (c) that the almost certainly broad and systemic nature of these atrocities would be revealed, and (d) the unthinkable commercial and reputational consequences surrounding Massey's position and income related to both domestic and international student fees every year.

But Ray Smith, Peter Whitehead, Peter Govers, and Emma Stephenson . . . at what cost to New Zealand's pet owners, to the educational standards of the "veterinarians" and other "clinical" personnel Massey pumps out into the open marketplace each year, and at what cost to your own, personal and professional integrity?

__________________________________________________

Part 2 of this Special Series will dissect 'Dr' Steffi Jalava's and 'Dr' Anita Shea's 'Clinical Summary' notes, laying bare the granular reality of the treatment logs (AND the missing logs), the paper-trail-backed catastrophic overdoses of convenience (and contraindicated) sedation resulting in intentional pharmacological poisoning, the premature disconnection of life-supporting fluids to facilitate highly invasive student "examinations" , the extraordinary physical "handling" of a blind, traumatised pet during unauthorised student filming sessions behind closed doors, and Massey’s own documented intention to terminate Harry following his utilisation in student training and filming activities.