The Killing of Harry: Expose of Veterinary Malpractice & Malfeasance Encounters Full-Scale Digital Blockade
Jordan Kelly • 20 January 2026

When a story involves the conduct of a public, tax-funded institution, transparency is expected. Not suppression through 'digital domain assassination' to prevent exposure by a journalist and pet owner-client.

When a story involves the conduct of a public, tax-funded institution, transparency is expected.

 

But when that institution has the power to interfere with a journalist’s (or anyone’s) right to speak publicly, the public interest at large, is at risk.

 

If you’re reading this, you’ve likely also read – or will be about to read – how Massey University’s Companion Animal Hospital duped me into letting them kill my preciously loved little papillon, Harry (I refuse to use the term “euthanase” because it was a clinical killing under false pretences – and I bring plenty of serious, undeniable receipts, as you’ll see, here,  here and here). And most recently and revealingly of all, here.)

 

But as I began to “whistleblow” to the media, and to the veterinary and broader pet enthusiasts sectors, I encountered a series of digital obstacles that appear far from coincidental.

 

For an email address that I’ve used – in a journalistic capacity – to distribute many newsletters, news releases and other such communications for more than a decade, and without ever appearing on one single “blacklist”, that same email address suddenly (just hours after sending Massey the heads-up of my intended expose) began receiving large influxes of uncharacteristic "timeouts" and "Access Denied" messages.


All this, for an email address sending a media release to exactly the same list of media outlets as I’d distributed to only two weeks earlier, with barely a single issue.

 

My professional email domain is technically clean. Squeaky clean. A global check via MxToolbox confirms zero blacklist listings and a perfect reputation score. Yet, the moment I began sharing news releases detailing my findings at Massey, my communications started hitting brick walls all over the digital sphere.

 

The Mechanics of ‘Cloud-Level’ Suppression

 

In my capacity as a journalist and consumer advocate, I am reporting on a pattern that suggests a sophisticated form of suppression: When an institution mischaracterises an inquiry as "Malicious" or "Phishing" within an internal security network – such as Microsoft 365 – the result is often form of "cloud echo".

 

By flagging a specific domain, a huge entity like Massey can effectively "poison" a professional identity for every other organisation on that shared security network.

 

So while that institution’s own doors remain open (allowing them to monitor incoming correspondence), the now-"poisoned" domain is prevented from reaching large swathes of the wider public, the media, and other sectors.

 

It creates a digital quarantine, ensuring that clinical and financial details of a controversial case are suppressed before they can reach a broader audience. A very effective and sophisticated behind-the-scenes censorship – but censorship of what YOU see. Not what they see.

 

All these sudden Access Denied codes (550 5.4.1 and 5.7.1) received from third parties, occurring in direct chronological proximity to my news releases, raises serious questions about the use of enterprise security tools to silence a client and prevent word of what I contend is a grievous case of intentional malpractice (more recently also revealed as clinical and managerial malfeasance) from being exposed to an external audience.

 

A Matter of Public Interest

 

Beyond the technical interference of server logs and status codes lies a much deeper constitutional violation. Under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 (Section 14), every citizen is guaranteed freedom of expression – which specifically includes the freedom to seek, receive, and impart information.


As a public institution, Massey University is not merely a service provider; it is an arm of the state, and as such, it is legally bound by this Act. When a public body uses enterprise security tools to “poison” the reputation of a journalist’s or a citizen's domain, it is no longer managing a network; it’s engaging in state-funded censorship.


A “digital blockade” is a direct assault on the constitutional protections that ensure transparency and allow whistleblowers to hold powerful institutions to account.

 

Message to Incoming Vice-Chancellor Pierre Venter: 
You’re Stepping Into A Culture of Cover-Ups & Suppression


Again, Massey University is a public institution. It has a duty to provide information, not to oversee its suppression.
 
If I’m right, Massey’s new incoming Vice Chancellor, Pierre Venter, would be well advised to commence his tenure by investigating not only this practice, but also by investigating the evidence of deception, cover-ups, and corporate arrogance and unaccountability that I have documented in the material they’re attempting to stop reaching external audiences.

  

It’s that very culture that saw me fall for the coercion I experienced to get me to authorise the clinical killing of my dog under heinous and directly provable false pretences (read the story here: they put my dog under heavy sedation without cause or consent and without disclosing to me that he was merely heavily sedated, when they presented him to me, instead, as “having had a neurological event” and needing immediate euthanising – a claim that stands in direct contradiction to documented evidence I have since uncovered).

 

If the details of my beloved dog’s, Harry’s, case are being met with digital interference rather than factual rebuttals, the public must ask why.

 

In the meantime, I will continue to progressively publish my findings and distribute my news releases and related communications through whatever means necessary – as embarrassing as the exposure may be to Massey, its culture, and to those within it who participated in duping me into authorising the cold, calculated, clinical killing of my dog before I could get him out of their clutches, and get the second opinion that would have revealed the fraudulent diagnosis and alerted me to their cover-up.
 

Below


My email's domain has a perfect global reputation score. The below global blacklists read-out shows my email address and its associated domain are as "clean as a whistle". Yet my professional communications are suddnely being unusually intercepted at some point in their transmission. This data proves that the "Access Denied" blocks are not automated security errors. They would, however, suggest a targeted attempt by someone to suppress a whistleblower.

Other News, Reviews & Commentary

by Jordan Kelly 15 March 2026
Editor’s Conclusion : Unsupervised. Unaccountable. Uninvestigated. And Still Accredited.
by Jordan Kelly 10 March 2026
UPDATED: 16.3.26 Will This Badly Behaving Institution Finally Allow the Full Truth to Be Revealed? (16.3.26: MASSEY BREACHED ALL ITEMS ON THE BELOW OIA; TOTALLY IGNORED THEIR LEGAL OBLIGATIONS. NO COMMUNICATION. A HUGE NO-NO IN THE NZ CONSTITUTIONAL FRAMEWORK.)
by Jordan Kelly 8 March 2026
Hidden in Plain Sight: Unashamed Conflicts of Interest to Make Your Head Spin
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 .)
Show More