Editor’s Conclusion:  Unqualified. Unsupervised. Unaccountable. And Still Accredited.

If what I am about to reveal in this – the latest and most damning of all my coverage and revelations regarding the torture, repeated catastrophic overdosing (to levels equating to severe poisoning), conversion for use in live experimentation and filming, and subsequent misrepresentation to me with a false diagnosis to facilitate coerced lethal injection permission – does not result in the immediate withdrawal by the three international agencies providing Massey’s veterinary facility accreditation . . . then the CEOs and boards of those agencies need to understand that knowingly maintaining accreditation in the face of documented, serious and notified breaches exposes each of them to personal liability for their own breaches of fiduciary duty.

Before I lay out my latest findings and Massey University’s latest serious misconduct and illegal actions, I want to make very clear who those heads of the three accrediting agencies are – because at this point, this matter goes far beyond the severe animal cruelty, multiple and serious breaches of the Code of Professional Conduct for Veterinarians (issued by the Veterinary Council of New Zealand under the Veterinarians Act 2005) – and well into criminal territory. And to a degree that should concern any enterprise hiring a graduate of Massey’s veterinary “teaching” facility.

Those accrediting agencies are the Australasian Veterinary Boards Council (AVBC), the American Veterinary Medical Association's Council on Education (AVMA COE), and the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons (RCVS) in the UK.

The AVBC’s Chief Executive Officer Kate Simkovic finally, after two months of ignored correspondence, sent an email only after I had cc’d her on all my Formal Notifications of March 6 to the collection of South East Asian stakeholder universities and institutions importing Massey veterinarian program graduates (with what I firmly believe was her bogus claim that she had intended to acknowledge my correspondence two months previously but someone forgot to hit Send).

Simkovic's March 12 reply was, in effect, a complete and disingenuous dismissal of all the findings I put to her . . . and it should be noted that, in fact, said “reply” came from an unnamed administration staffer (so that, when I published it, it wouldn’t come up in an internet search showing her name). It ended with the equivalent of "no further correspondence will be entered into".

The AVMA’s Council on Education (COE) replied via Dr Samantha Morello, its Associate Director, Education & Research. However, the actual CEO (and its Executive Vice President) is a Dr Janet Donlin and its President is a Dr Michael Q. Bailey.

Morello (like her Australasian colleague, Simkovic) ignored all cc'd notifications and finally, on March 7, sent a smart-ass 93-word dismissal of my multiple items of cross-referenced breaches and detailed evidence thereof.

She said my citings didn’t “align specifically” with the AVMA's 'Accreditation Policies and Procedures' manual. She sent me a link to this 207-page document, which I duly read and, also on March 7, replied to with an even more greatly detailed, 4000-word itemisation and commentary, "specifically aligning" for her, Massey’s now many more breaches, and counting. (Readers interested in this correspondence "exchange" can view it at the Harry Kelly case study page on the new International Institute for Improvement in Veterinary Ethics (IIIVE) website i.e. www.iiive.org. That reply email from me to Dr Morello remains unacknowledged as of March 16.

To be noted, the AVMA's 'Accreditation Policies and Procedures' manual states that Massey’s - as an accredited university's - annual fees paid to the AVMA for its accreditation and its financial hosting of AVMA staff, must be kept up to date at all times.  It does not, however, disclose any specific amounts.

The RCVS has sent two skeletal acknowledgements of my correspondence through a departmental executive assistant. I was grateful for the additional response of, Ky Richardson, a senior solicitor within its Standards and Advice Team - Professional Conduct, who - among other insights - advised that "Chapter 11" should be referred to in the event of a veterinary surgeon "pressuring (a client) to make a particular decision i.e. a potential issue relating to informed consent." 

"This Chapter," states the RCVS Code of Conduct, "is critical for ensuring legal compliance and building trust between veterinary professionals and clients."

To be clear, I cite these accrediting bodies upfront in this new series of revelations, because:

(a) Massey and its external legal counsel have shown themselves to have zero respect not only for the most fundamental of basic veterinary codes of conduct clauses or any aspect of veterinary ethics, but also

(b)  Massey's "leadership" and veterinary personnel at all levels continue to demonstrate complete contempt for core New Zealand laws . . . from laws concerning the falsification of clinical records and associated fraudulent conduct, to the country’s hallowed Official Information Act 1982 requirements that every citizen believes they can count on. Apparently errantly, as they relate to Massey University.

Official Information Act 1982:
Cornerstone of NZ’s Constitutional Framework for Public Sector Accountability . . . But Not for Massey

New Zealand's Official Information Act 1982 – known widely by almost every New Zealand citizen and referred to as the “OIA” – is a cornerstone of this country's constitutional framework.

Its guiding principle is immutable and understood by almost every New Zealand adult and certainly by every public servant / civil service employee:
 
Official information held by public bodies, including universities, must be made available unless there is (very) good reason to withhold it and in which case that reason must be clearly stated. Requests must be answered as soon as reasonably practicable and by no later than the 20th working day following the organisation receiving the requester’s correspondence. If an agency cannot meet that deadline (and it must have a legitimate reason for not being able to do so), it must notify the requester of the necessary period of extension within that same 20-working-day period.

The literally thousands of readers now following the atrocity that is “The Killing of Harry Kelly” case, and who have read my March 10 upload, WAITING, MASSEY: Are You Going to Comply with Your Legally Required Information-Release Obligations?, will have noted that Massey finally acknowledged my February 20 OIA on March 5 (that delay of acknowledgement being contemptuous in its own right in terms of normal expectations), and undertook to have the itemised information to me by the legally-required deadline of March 13.

But March 13 came and went. No response. No extension request. No partial release. No acknowledgement of any kind.

Thus, and to be very clear, Massey’s leadership, management, and Legal and Governance personnel have just committed a serious breach of the fundamental foundations of this country’s legal framework.

They haven’t done it unknowingly, either – and, considering also the new relevations I bring to you today in this update – I will lay out the only conclusion I or any other intelligent follower of this matter can realistically, even conservatively, arrive at. 

That conclusion is this: 

The various elements of information I have sought through the Official Information Act are so utterly damning, that Massey’s external legal advisors – as far as can be ascertained,such being high-profile New Zealand law firm, Buddle Findlay – have advised Massey “leadership” that, notwithstanding the apparent collusive posture of the three accrediting bodies, my publication of that information would be so explosive that the consequences would be publicly and legally catastrophic for Massey.

Every Client of Massey’s ‘Companion Animal Hospital’ Will Want to Re-think Their Vets’ Referrals . . . with Urgency

And they certainly would be . . . based just on what I can, in today’s update, reveal to readers even without what Massey continues to withhold.

What I am about to reveal should be shocking to every current client of Massey’s “Companion Animal Hospital”, to every client whose pet any veterinarian might refer to Massey, to any referring vet or vet practice who can lay honest claim (which might actually not be many) to being unaware of what has been going on at Massey, to any accrediting body that was acting in genuine accordance with its mandate to apply its accreditation standards (which, as you’ve read has been demonstrated not to be the case), and to any importer of veterinary “training” services and/or veterinary program graduates into their own countries.

Above all, it should alarm this country’s own regulatory and disciplinary authority, the Veterinary Council of New Zealand (VCNZ). But it not only doesn’t alarm the VCNZ; the two bodies are essentially one and the same structure, in terms of the receiving and investigation of any complaint about Massey or Massey-related veterinarians — given that Massey is the only veterinary school in New Zealand and the sole domestic pipeline for the profession.

Not Just ‘Conflicts of Interest’ . . . Full. Agency. Capture.

In a classic illustration of "we have investigated ourselves and found no wrongdoing"', the Academic Program Director of Massey's undergraduate veterinary program, Dr Jenny Weston, is one of the seven members of the Veterinary Council of New Zealand itself - the governing body that receives and adjudicates all complaints about Massey's veterinary program. (She also co-authors papers with VCNZ CEO, Iain McLachlan.)

That goes way beyond a conflict of interest.

That’s full-scale, industrial-strength, structural, agency, and regulatory capture.

Even without this “one and the same” day-to-day interconnectivity, it would be an extraordinarily naïve individual who would believe that the VCNZ isn’t already in possession of the full knowledge of what has been going on at Massey’s Veterinary Teaching Hospital aka “Companion Animal Hospital”.

The VCNZ's CEO McLachlan has not only been in receipt of all my communications both to him and to Massey for the past three months, but so also has the second point of direct conflict of interest between his organisation and Massey . . . because, for most of that duration and unbeknownst to me, I was openly cc'ing my communications to McLachlan to the second direct point of conflicted interest i.e. Dr Seton Butler. Wait for it . . . Butler is on both the VCNZ payroll as its Professional Advisor on policy and standards, and on the Massey payroll - albeit whether it's a current or an immediate past appointment is unclear - as an Adjunct Lecturer at the School of Veterinary Science. Butler holds a BVSc from Massey University.

For perpetuating that active conflict by allowing me to keep cc’ing Butler without disclosing his conflicted position, and for his direct avoidance of any facilitation of my ability to put a complaint to the VCNZ, McLachlan (being a registered lawyer) now has an active complaint in motion against him with the New Zealand Law Society.

And the regulatory capture doesn't stop with the Massey / VCNZ incest, either.

The VCNZ itself is a member of the AVBC - the Australasian body that accredits Massey's veterinary program. The current Chair of the VCNZ, Dr Kylie Lawson, is herself a Massey University graduate.

The body that accredits Massey. With the regulator that polices Massey sitting inside it. And the regulator's own Chair a product of the institution both bodies are supposed to hold to account.

BEYOND DAMNING

Now to exactly why Buddle Findlay has advised Massey’s “leadership” – Vice-Chancellor Pierre Venter, “Dean” of the Veterinary “School” Jon Huxley, and “Dean” of Veterinary “Education”, Jenny Weston – to take the lesser evil of breaching New Zealand’s Official Information Act as opposed to responding to my OIA with the required information.

First, foremost and most damning of all, if the required information were released is this:

Given that the “clinical records” I have thus far managed to extract from Massey’s clutches have had every single name struck through with large black boxes to hide the names and position titles of all personnel, I asked for the “unredacted names and professional roles of all staff involved in the ‘care’, treatment, and handling in any way of Harry Kelly during the November 30 and December 1, 2025 period and also in the period following his death on December 1, 2025, including all staff involved in the handling of his body.

This included “all staff, contractors, visiting specialists, locums, or other persons engaged by or associated with Massey University in any capacity”.  

I included the note that, additional to their Official Information Act obligations, “Principle 11(e) of the Privacy Act 2020 allows this disclosure, in order to uphold a statutory regulatory process.

I pointed out what they well knew because they planned it that way: “Massey's current redaction is being utilised to subvert my right to file a VCNZ complaint.”

I also advised Massey, “that a Senior Standards and Advice Officer and Solicitor at the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons (RCVS) – an organisation providing accreditation to Massey University – has confirmed in writing that, in the RCVS jurisdiction, veterinary surgeons are expected to provide their name to clients so as not to prevent them from raising a conduct concern, and that this obligation applies regardless of whether the individual is employed by a university or a private practice. Thus, Massey's blanket redaction of all clinician identities is entirely inconsistent with the international professional standard applicable to its own registered staff.”

The REAL Reasons for the Non-Disclosure of Who ‘Treated’ Harry

And now to the actual reason for the Massey Legal and Governance department’s redactions:

I had until now, assumed that Massey’s primary reason for the refusal to follow all professional veterinary norms (which dictate that any paying client and pet owner should, at all times, have full knowledge of the name, position and overall identity of those veterinarians and staff who treat or who have treated their pet) was to prevent the lodging of a complaint against any of them with the Veterinary Council.

However, given my subsequent realisation that the VCNZ was, in its own right, either going to prevent that happening or almost certainly, if it “accepted” any complaint – with the senior-most levels of VCNZ and Massey’s veterinary establishment being essentially one and the same organisation – was going to ensure that that  complaint returned a “nothing to see here” outcome . . . the continued refusal to disclose the identities of the relevant staff required further investigation.

And here is exactly what my deeper investigation turned up:
 
“Dr” Stephanie Rigg was NOT a qualified veterinarian when she overdosed Harry, when she organised for his conversion from patient to university "teaching" aid resource, when she organised for “her neurologist” (as she referred to her) to collude in the intentional misdiagnosis of Harry as having suffered a sudden “neurological” event or decline and requiring urgent “euthanasia”, and her subsequent intensive two-hour, unaccompanied, lone and self-directed coercion of me to get me to sign the termination authority form.

I errantly referred to “Dr” Stephanie Rigg in my previous article. It now appears that Rigg did NOT hold a qualification when she “treated” Harry. Yet, at all times, including the instance of a previous consultation quite some months and possibly a year or more earlier, she had presented – or, rather, misrepresented - herself to me as “the ICU day vet”. As in, a fully qualified - and even, by way of her self-description, a senior - vet.

She is listed on Massey’s website, however, as “Stephanie Rigg – Companion Animal Rotating Intern” – albeit, upon clicking on the listing, her profile has now been removed from the site.

Rigg, NOT a qualified vet at the time, was the primary – or only – staff member whose account appears in Massey’s “Clinical Summary’ and clearly takes the credit, alone, for her “advice” to me i.e. encouraging the immediate “euthanasia” of Harry, stating – in her own written words, as indeed she had done verbally during her intensive, unsupervised coercion of me, that “I can’t fix him.”   (To be noted, she had been the one to endeavour to ensure that he indeed needed some form of “fixing” and also to ensure that I would, to the greatest degree to which she could deceive me, consider him “unfixable”, in order that I would submit to her intense pressure to sign “euthanasia” forms i.e. to remove his presence as evidence of what had been done to him by the night shift ICU attendants and then intentionally perpetuated – along with his conversion as a live experimentation and filming subject for “teaching” staff and students – by herself, Rigg.)

VCNZ, Knowingly, Has Now Issued Rigg A Licence . . . to Kill Again

Even more worryingly, is that this highly dangerous individual, Stephanie Rigg, now appears on the VCNZ online directory as a registered veterinarian practicing in Auckland.

This indicates that McLachlan issued her with a licence to practice as a qualified veterinarian – even after knowing of her lead role in the torture, falsified diagnosis, coercion of life termination, and falsification of clinical records and also of bogus invoicing relating to Harry Kelly . . . that is, my treasured, beloved dog i.e. the pet of a private fee-paying patient.

But Massey's catalogue of the unqualified doesn't end there - as though that weren’t sufficiently horrifying.

According to the geographic listings of veterinarians on the Veterinary Council of New Zealand’s online directory – neither was (or possibly yet is) the (very) young intaking vet – also named “Stephanie” according to information given to me by a fellow Massey client.

Yet young “Stephanie” gave me her distinct and absolute assurance that she was a fully qualified veterinarian. NB: I am, and have always been, extraordinarily closely bonded with and protective of Harry and there is simply no way I would have left Harry in her “care” had I been truthfully advised that she was not a graduated vet. She appeared not only inexperienced but also well out of her depth, and certainly appeared to have no authority over, and in fact to be intimidated by, the openly negligent two female ICU attendants.

Leaving Harry there that night, as he stood up on his little hind legs, crying, and with his paws outstretched to me through the cage, with the two attendants blatantly ignoring him . . . was the second worse decision of my life. The one that takes first place is falling for Rigg’s subsequent bogus “neurological event/decline” diagnosis and being bullied into signing to end my precious little boy’s life. Yes, they and she had indeed engineered him into a horrendous state . . . but as I’ve pointed out in previous articles, such was his determination to reach me through what I wished  I’d known then was actually his heavy sedation, that I fully believe our bond and a competent veterinary practice would have been able to pull him through.

As I work my way further through the items of Massey’s OIA breach and withheld information, readers will come to what appears to be the only obvious conclusion, which is that:

Massey’s Companion Animal Hospital appears to be staffed either exclusively or primarily by unqualified juniors and students, who are left to run the facility as they please, to administer drugs in accordance with their own desires and purposes, to convert to University resources, and to make life or death decisions for, private fee-paying clients’ pets.

ICU Video Footage of Harry Kelly

I also sought “the release in full of all video footage taken of Harry Kelly during his admission to Massey University's Companion Animal Hospital ICU on November 30 and December 1, 2025 – and also any taken after his death.

I reminded Massey’s Legal and Governance department and Buddle Findlay that “this request is made pursuant to the Official Information Act 1982, and I note that the Office of the Privacy Commissioner has specifically and proactively advised me that this material is releasable under the Official Information Act and has recommended that I request it accordingly.

“Massey's previous refusal to release the footage in full – including the offer of still-frame extracts in substitution for the actual footage, and the requirement that I attend the premises to view footage rather than receive it electronically - is not considered adequate compliance with my request and is not accepted.”

I’ll take this opportunity to remind readers of the twisted and intense cruelty – and the volumes it speaks of Massey University’s culture – that saw staff mock me in my trauma and my grief by sending me those stills in the same circular format that I had used, for the information of my readers, in my display of Harry’s (unbeknownst to me at the time) drugged state while being abused and filmed by students.

To be clear, these twisted individuals - assumedly under some degree of direction from the Companion Animal "Hospital's" Practice Manager, Pauline Nijman (who shall we just say, never "appreciated my standards"), put Harry's poor, dear, contorted little face or body from their "still" shots inside small circles in outright mockery both of me and of him.

For the record, I do indeed utterly dread seeing the full and protracted horrors to which the staff and students subjected my beloved, drugged, and poor little blind Harry(SEE THEiR  “SANITISED” STILLS HERE..)

Unspeakable cruelties – most especially for a blind animal – that included, by way of example, precariously holding him high up to the ceiling with one hand, digging fingernails into his scalp to pull his eyes open while a camera was aimed at close range into them, forcing him to stumble around in drugged circles for the camera, and filming him from above while he appeared to be propped up vertically but collapsing from the torso over backwards or sideways. You can get a feel for the subjected him to here, here and here.

But put myself through it I must. Harry was my dog (not that Rigg or Massey's "teaching" staff saw it that way), my precious little blind boy and the equivalent of no less than a child to me, and if he went through it physically and emotionally, then it is incumbent upon me to put myself through at least the emotional equivalent of what was done to him – as unspeakable, as inconceivable, and as fully evil as it all was.

And as traumatised as I have already been by these subhumans.

Instructional Content Authorisation

I also sought “all internal documentation, ethics committee approvals, or funding agreements related to the production of ‘instructional content’ or clinical studies in the ICU or any other part, operation, or department of Massey University and/or its Companion Animal Hospital during the period of Harry Kelly's admission, (expanded from original request) and including while his body was in Massey’s possession.”

My purpose in requiring this was to determine whether any ethics committee approval or funding agreement existed that authorised his use as such – noting that:

(a) my own permission would also have been required (without which Massey staff were committing conversion of property under New Zealand common law, breaching their duty of care under Section 12 of the Animal Welfare Act 1999, and acting in fundamental breach of their contractual obligations to me as a fee-paying client,

(b) repeatedly overdosing him with a contraindicated sedation cocktail for the purpose would certainly not have met any ethics standards if I had (as clearly I would NOT have) given any such authority, and

(c) disconnecting him from his hydrating IV line, by-then, his only hope of evacuating the accumulated Gabapentin poisoning from his kidneys, would certainly not have met any veterinary or ethics standards in any developed country anywhere.

Again, if instructional content was produced using Harry without my consent, that constitutes a serious breach of the Animal Welfare Act 1999, and of the fundamental obligations of informed consent owed to any client of a veterinary facility.

And if no ethics approval existed for the use of a private fee-paying patient as a teaching subject, the absence of that approval is itself a matter for prosecution and legal action.

In either instance, Massey's abhorrent, "law unto themselves" actions constituted serious illegalities. Illegalities, and associated animal cruelty, that does not belong in any "veterinary teaching hospital" anywhere.

Missing IDEXX Vital Signs Monitoring Records Post-Overdosing & During and After Filming Utilisation of My Pet

I also drew the attention of Massey Legal and Governance’s Frances Mullan, Rachel Fergusson and Jodie Banner to their critical omission from my earlier Privacy Act request:

“In response to my request for Harry Kelly's full clinical records, I received machine-generated IDEXX diagnostic monitoring data and automated vital signs logs for November 30, 2025 – that is, ONLY November 30.”

Thus, I reiterated, I require “all machine-generated diagnostic monitoring data, IDEXX reports, and automated vital signs logs for Harry Kelly for December 1, 2025, including explicit confirmation of whether any such data was recorded and, if so, its current location within Massey's records management system.”

I duly pointed out what they would themselves be uncomfortably aware of: that “any confirmation that no such data exists will itself be treated as a significant finding requiring further explanation, given that Massey's own Clinical Summary records active patient monitoring during this period.

“The significance of this data omission, and the contrast between the November 30 data provided and the December 1 data withheld, is documented in detail at: https://www.thecustomer.co.nz/smoking-gun-finding-harry-was-a-marked-dog.

“No equivalent data was provided for December 1, 2025 - the most critical period of Harry's admission, during which he is documented in Massey's own Clinical Summary as ‘obtunded’, ‘limp’, and (apparently) in a worsening ‘neurological’ state (he was, of course, actually massively over-sedated).”

Controlled Drugs Register

Directly related to all of the above, I required Massey to provide – as is my right – “all entries in the Controlled Drugs Register maintained by Massey University's Companion Animal Hospital pursuant to the Medicines Act 1981 and the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975, as they relate to the dispensing, administration, or recording of any controlled or prescription substance administered to Harry Kelly.”

Among the reasons, is that I do not for one moment, believe that Massey’s “Clinical Summary” is a complete record of all the drugs – and/or the number of times these were – forced into Harry.

Because Massey would not release six of the eight videos its students took of him (and I believe there were likely far more, given especially that these were apparently taken on cell phones), Massey sought to “satisfy” my legal request with their own selected “still” shot from each video. One, with a 10.41am timestamp, shows him being forced by staff to stumble around, heavily sedated, in circles, for their entertainment.

The point being, that while he was stumbling and clearly subjected to cruelty by the students and teachers involved, he was still – at that point in time – able to stand upright . . . albeit just. (PS to Readers: When contemplating the immense cruelty of being forced to do that in his heavily and grossly over-sedated state, consider also that Harry was blind, that he would have been stressed beyond measure being separated from me, and that he was in a completely foreign and terrifying environment).

The “Clinical Summary” states that the final administration of the contraindicated Gabapentin overdose was at 9am. Yet, when I arrived at approximately 3.30pm and he was handed over to me at around 4pm (amidst Rigg’s intense coercion to sign “euthanasia” forms i.e. she warmed me up with the "neurological" fairy tale first), he was alternating between almost coma-like limpness and unable to hold his upper body upright, with sudden bursts of vertical motion to reach my face to kiss me, and also to recoil in fear from Rigg and the sound of her voice.

I am in little to no doubt that Harry was administered even further, undocumented doses – each one a massive overdose in its own right, as each of the previous administrations had been – to ensure he appeared as suddenly and severely “neurologically declined” and unrecoverable as possible, when I arrived at the facility.

While Massey management and staff, and assumedly therefore also students, have demonstrated that the falsification of records is standard practice at this Companion Animal “Hospital”, I nonetheless still sought – and still seek (as I do all the information requirements listed herein) – the Controlled Drug Register, nonetheless.

Patient Record Access Log and Audit Trail / Patient Change Log (Field-Level Audit)

I also sought “the unredacted Field-Level Audit Log (Patient Change Log) and all associated system access logs identifying the names, position titles, and login credentials of every staff member who accessed, viewed, created, amended, ‘updated’ or deleted any entry in Harry Kelly's electronic patient record from November 30, 2025, to the date of Massey's response to this request. This request specifically includes but is not limited to the metadata audit trail of the clinical records management system used by the Companion Animal Hospital.”

As those following this horror story will be well aware, I have filed a detailed police report against Massey management and staff related to the following Crimes Act 1961 Sections i.e. Section 258 (Altering a document with intent to deceive) and Section 260 (Falsifying registers) - attracting jail time of up to 10 years.

There is no need to elaborate on why Buddle Findlay would have advised against the disclosure of the names of these staff.

Pet Farewells Communications

Next, “as per previous requests: all communications (written, verbal, electronic, through systems or manually prompted) with Pet Farewells regarding Harry Kelly and Jordan Kelly. Specifically, not a general commentary.”

Harry was killed (followers of this series will understand perfectly why “euthanased” is not an accurate term and why I refuse to use it) by Massey on December 1. As of March 15 – i.e. the publication of this article – I am still trying to ascertain exactly what happened to Harry’s remains and his ashes.

(NB: I cannot tell you how intensely it PISSES ME OFF BEYOND ALL MEASURE to be referring to “Harry’s remains” and “Harry’s ashes”, when HARRY SHOULD STILL BE VERY MUCH ALIVE AND IN HIS BED BESIDE MY DESK AS I TYPE THIS, WERE IT NOT FOR “DR DEATH” STEPHANIE RIGG, WHO – AS WE HAVE NOW IDENTIFIED – WASN’T EVEN A “DOCTOR” WHEN SHE TOOK THE ACTIONS, DECISIONS AND COERCIONS THAT RESULTED IN HER ENSURING THAT HE IS NOT, IN FACT, IN HIS BED BESIDE MY DESK TONIGHT.)

Post-Mortem Activity

I further sought, “as per previous requests: disclosure of whether or not an unauthorised post-mortem (cosmetic or full) was performed on Harry Kelly."

In my fully unsuccessful communications with the utterly despicable pet cremation company that Massey recommended, “Pet Farewells” of Wellington and Hamilton i.e. in trying to determine what really happened to his ashes – given that someone told someone that I “didn’t want Harry back” - I was told (although it was later declared to be a slip of the tongue that I should disregard having heard) that Harry had been “picked up with all the other post-mortems”.

I have been supplied with a photo of what I’m told is Harry’s body wrapped inside the blanket I myself wrapped him in when I finally allowed “Dr Death” Rigg to take him from me on that fateful day . . . and it shows the blanket, assumedly with his precious little body in it, in the back of what I can only describe as a “yuck truck”.

There are buckets in the back of said yuck truck containing bags of what, to me, look like probable dissected bodies or body parts.

This is the final insult Massey, Rigg and staff delivered to me and to Harry, after everything else they had done both to me and to him. To say nothing of the tens of thousands of dollars I have channeled into their coffers, including related to Harry’s also beloved predecessor – who, it should be noted, didn’t make it out of there alive, either.

Conflicts of Interest & Expenditure on Buddle Findlay

I also required copies of all communications in any form between the at least two identified points of direct conflict between Massey’s leadership and the Veterinary Council of New Zealand i.e. the VCNZ’s Professional Advisor (on "policy and standards", if you please) Dr Seton Butler, who is also Adjunct Lecturer at Massey University’s School of Veterinary Science (and holds a BVSc from Massey)  . . . and Dr Jenny Weston, VCNZ Council member and the Academic Program Director of Massey University’s undergraduate veterinary program.

I further required the expenditure to date that Massey has shoveled into the no-doubt rapidly expanding coffers of Buddle Findlay . . . who would appear – according to the analytics tracking of The Customer & The Constituent – to have multiple personnel monitoring the site daily for new uploads.

NEXT ACTIONS: 

Formal notification of these latest findings and developments will be additionally sent to the three accrediting agencies – the Australasian Veterinary Boards Council, the American Veterinary Medical Association, and the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons (UK) and their respective leaderships. This latest notification will add to the list of their own Standards that I have previously advised each accrediting body Massey is in direct and severe breach of.

I will also send warnings to those universities in other countries who are directly associated with Massey and also to the government bodies in the South East Asian jurisdictions which rely primarily on Massey-trained graduates to staff the veterinary clinics of their own countries.

Of concern to the pet owners of New Zealand specifically, I will send urgent notices to the veterinary clinics of this country.

I will also advise these clinics that those notices will be permanently published on the website of the new initiative I have launched – the International Institute for Improvement in Veterinary Ethics (IIIVE.org) – and will serve as proof of their knowledge of Massey's conduct and standards (or dangerous lack thereof), including the University's standards of student "education"..

That is, the notices will be permanently and readily accessible to the legal counsel of any pet owner whose pet has been harmed or killed either by Massey University's veterinary "hospital" directly following a referral by that veterinary clinic or by any Massey graduate in their employ.

Finally, I will alert each of the authorities currently involved in this matter.

Within the domestic i.e. New Zealand jurisdiction, these include but are unlikely to remain limited to:

• Ministry of Primary Industries’ Animal Welfare Inspectorate.

• New Zealand Police.

• Public Service Commission.

• Commerce Commission.

• Law Society (with regard to the conduct of the Chief Executive of the Veterinary Council, Iain McLachlan).

A WORD TO BUDDLE FINDLAY:

I am in no doubt that your advice to Massey’s “leadership”, Vice-Chancellor Pierre Venter, the “Dean” of the veterinary “School”, Jon Huxley, and the “Dean” of Veterinary “Education” Jenny Weston will have been to the effect of, “by the time her complaint to the Ombudsman for breaching the Official Information Act makes it through a year or so in the Ombudsman’s queue, she’ll have run out of topics to write about or she’ll have worn herself out; that’s infinitely preferable to the catastrophic results of releasing what she’s asked for, especially knowing that she’s going to publish it.”

Buddle Findlay, let me make this 100 percent clear to you:

If you genuinely believe that I will wear myself out and that all this will “fade out” with the passage of time, then your latest advice to Massey is equally reflective of your extraordinarily poor initial advice to the venerable Dean Huxley, when you told him to threaten me with you.

You don’t scare me. Far from it. I consider you a bunch of overpaid intellectual (or maybe not so intellectual) thugs who would sell your souls to anyone for anything, as long as the fee structure was right.

You won’t silence me. I told you: Rigg and co silenced Harry. You won’t silence me.

To believe otherwise would be to exercise remarkable arrogance, a lack of due diligence (notwithstanding all the archive-digging and other forms of profiling you have likely done), and a complete absence of responsibility for the fees you know Massey will have to continue to shovel – ongoingly – into your coffers as a result of that poorly-strategised and arrogant advice.

As I published for your benefit back on January 16 - in my article titled, You Won’t Wear Me Out or Wait Me Out, Massey. You Killed My Dog, Remember?, both my sentiment and my commitment to achieving some form of justice – albeit posthumously – for my beloved Harry (who should still BE HERE WITH ME) stands.

And. It. Stands. Firm. It will NEVER waver.

You can count on it NEVER changing. Not now. And – including also in the interests of my fellow pet parents – not ever.

In the meantime, allow me to introduce you to my latest demonstration of that commitment: The International Institute for Improvement in Veterinary Ethics (IIIVE).

The Institute’s website is locked, loaded and launched . . . and right here for your information:  www.iiive.org

The Harry Kelly Case Study will be referenced in everything we do - every piece of educational material, every media statement, and every online and bricks-and-mortar event.

EVERYTHING.

As unwelcome as that will be to you and to your client.