READERS: Watch Massey's Director of 'Governance & Assurance,' Jodie Banner, and Her OIA Games . . . In Real Time
Jordan Kelly • 19 July 2026

Jodie Banner, the Information is the Information. Who Do You Need to 'Consult' With, Have It Sanitised By, Re-Engineered By, Strategised By, or Created By, Before You Finally Release Something to Me?

Above:  Institutional desperation on full display. Massey's Director of Governance and Assurance, Jodie Banner, displaying the institution's petty passive-aggressive strategy of issuing their "responses" or rather, their non-responses, in a tiny unreadable 7-point typeface. (The above screenshot is magnified.)

____________________________________________


Massey University has, for the second time, extended its statutory deadline to respond to an Official Information Act request seeking core operational data relating to the abuse, torture and coerced-under-false-pretences killing of my beloved little papillon, Harry, at the University's Companion Animal "Hospital" on December 1 last year.


To be clear, this particular OIA request, to a large degree, is for very basic information that any pet owner would want and is certainly entitled to, but that the University's Director of Governance and Assurance, Jodie Banner, has already wangled, wiggled, and/or arrogantly refused to release under my other requests. However, I have kept going back and tightening the noose to get what they know they are eventually going to be forced to hand over . . . even if only because I am holding her to such public account through this publication and its sister site, the International Institute for Improvement in Veterinary Ethics . . . both of which now have eyes on them that are making Massey more than uncomfortable.


So . . . Banner issued yet a second extension notice to an OIA request (for some very revealing information that they really, really don't want to hand over) at 5.04 PM on Friday 17 July 2026 (four minutes after her initial extension expired) — this time pushing the response date out to August 7, on the grounds that yet further consultations are required.


The Information Either Exists or It Doesn't, Jodie Banner


But . . . from where I or any reasonable thinking person sits, the information is the information. It either exists or it doesn't. So who then, is she needing to keep "consulting" with, or to additionally "consult" with?


Is Massey casting an international net to recruit hired-gun veterinary gurus to fabricate a particularly clever, retrospective medical cover story to explain away why a viable pet was catastrophically overdosed with unnecessary, contraindicated substances  and disconnected from the very basic rehydration treatment for which he was actually admitted? Something that can be somehow invented that never appeared in his (already dodgy) "Clinical Summary"? After all, Harry's clinical "records" show the institution has already falsified, added to, embellished, twisted, re-framed and altered quite enough reality.


If a valid justification doesn’t exist in the contemporaneous clinical records for the many heinous actions he was subjected to, inventing one this belatedly is going to ultimately be a monumentally bigger problem than Massey already faces. I'm sure if Massey is acting in a clear-thinking manner within the confines of their obvious desperation to keep the cover-up from cracking wide open (which it actually already has), they'll know that I'll make sure of that.


Back to the question of exactly what parties they are seeking out to "consult" with. If, from this list of parties, it's primarily the hunt for some purchasable, creative, sharp-thinking veterinary guru that is causing these ongoing delays, they are obviously conducting a very serious (and likely, international) search for someone who can come up with something.


Or is it that they need more time to co-ordinate with external PR spin doctors, corporate lawyers at Buddle Findlay, and institutional liability insurers because they've realised they can't produce specific, written owner consent forms and Animal Ethics Committee (AEC) registrations for the heinous student "teaching" and video production activities . . . because those authorisations simply do not exist? (Certainly no owner consent forms exist, which makes any other form of "authorisation" completely null and void.)


Given that these core operational questions - specifically regarding student utilisation consent violations, Animal Ethics Committee registrations, overnight staffing realities, IV fluid disconnection authorisations, and internal risk communication trails - have been put to the University executive repeatedly over the preceding months, the assertion that baseline institutional data requires a second 15-working-day window to locate is more than just noteworthy. To any ethical, competent organisation, it's ludicrous.


Perhaps Buddle Findlay has drawn further complete blanks on how to legally suppress Massey's own internal email panic trail and risk briefings. Certainly they know how it now looks to the growing, international readership of this publication for Banner to keep arrogantly refusing the very justifiable information I'm asking for. Or to keep totally ignoring my OIA requests  outright.


Incompetence or Further Sleight of Hand?


In both extension notices, the formal internal header reads "Extension of time to respond to request under the Privacy Act - REF#15/2026" - the Official Information Act having been omitted from that header in both instances. The July 1 notice at least separated the two Acts clearly in its body text (despite an earlier sleight of hand by Banner to re-categorise/downgrade the entire request and all its questions to a Privacy Act request), with a distinct bullet point for each.


By July 17, that structural clarity is gone (see below emails) - the OIA is folded into a single collapsed sentence rather than treated as its own distinct track. An institution under this level of scrutiny cannot even keep its own administrative paperwork straight. Whether this is sloppy bureaucratic incompetence or a strategic attempt to sideline the public accountability of the OIA track, the effect is the same:  Massey's internal record-keeping is in as much disarray as its clinical operations.


But back to all these "consultations" that Banner and co. need to have, or keep having, before they can simply release information that should already exist, and that should be simply released in the form in which it does already exist. If it exists.


Perhaps the time has come to put in an OIA to show the taxpaying public and Massey University's donors  these other categories of expenditure, which the university gutlessly prioritises over even the notion of admitting to its gross systemic clinical, ethical, legal, and administrative failures . . . and doing something to address them.


At what point will their board of governors - the supposedly unimpeachable individuals who comprise the Massey University Council - deem enough antics, enough University funds, and enough dishonesty has been deployed in favour of the continuing (and clearly, failing) attempts to keep the lid on what's been going on at Massey's Veterinary "Teaching" "Hospital" aka their Companion Animal "Hospital"?


Below, for the information of readers and "watchers", I reproduce my original Official Information Act request, along with Jodie Banner's first notice of extension and now her second. Readers are more fortunate with this reproduction than I was in receiving Banner's actual emails, which - per the screenshot at the top of this article - were in the type of tiny print one finds in  places where it is hoped it will not be read because it is too unreadable.


From:  Privacy <Privacy@massey.ac.nz> 
Sent:  Friday, 17 July 2026 5:04 pm
To:  Privacy <Privacy@massey.ac.nz>; 'editor@consumeraffairswriter.com' OIA Requests <oia@massey.ac.nz>
Subject: RE: Information Request Extension #15/2026_Kelly

 

Kia ora, Ms. Kelly

 

Extension of time to respond to request under the Privacy Act – REF#15/2026.

I refer to your request for information, received by Massey University on 4 June 2026 as shown below.

Regrettably Massey University is unable to respond to your request within the extended time limit of Friday 17th July notified under the Privacy Act and Official Information Act respectively. We miscalculated the additional time required for completing required consultations on your request at the time we issued the extension, for which we apologise.


The response will now be provided to you no later than Friday 7 August 2026, an extension of 15 working days. We will endeavour to provide our response earlier than this. You have a right under section 82 of the Privacy Act to make a complaint to the Privacy Commissioner and/or under section 28(3) of the Official Information Act to make a complaint to an Ombudsman, about this decision. Information about how to make a complaint is available at https://www.privacy.org.nz/ or by freephone 0800 803 909 and/or available at www.ombudsman.parliament.nz or by freephone 0800 802 602.

 

Kind regards

Governance and Assurance Office

 

From: Privacy <Privacy@massey.ac.nz> 
Sent: Wednesday, 1 July 2026 4:53 pm
To: Privacy <Privacy@massey.ac.nz>; 'editor@consumeraffairswriter.com'; OIA Requests <oia@massey.ac.nz>
Subject: Information Request Extension #15/2026_Kelly

 

Kia ora, Ms. Kelly

 

Extension of time to respond to request under the Privacy Act – REF#15/2026.

I refer to your request for information, received by Massey University on 4 June 2026 as shown below. Massey University is unable to respond to your request within the normal time limit set out in the Privacy Act and/or the Official Information Act which is no later than 20 working days after the day on which the request was received.

 

Accordingly, to the extent that the information you have requested is:

  • Covered by the Privacy Act, I am notifying you under section 44 of that Act that the timeframe for responding to your request has been extended. The reason for this extension is that consultations necessary to provide a full and accurate response cannot be completed within the original timeframe.
  • Covered by the Official Information Act, I am notifying you under section 15A of the Official information Act , that the timeframe for responding to your request has been extended. The reason for this extension is that consultations necessary to provide a full and accurate response cannot be completed within the original timeframe.

 

The response will now be provided to you no later than Friday 17 July 2026, an extension of 10 working days, taking in to account the Matariki public holiday on 10 July 2026.

You have a right under section 82 of the Privacy Act to make a complaint to the Privacy Commissioner and/or under section 28(3) of the Official Information Act to make a complaint to an Ombudsman, about this decision. Information about how to make a complaint is available at https://www.privacy.org.nz/ or by freephone 0800 803 909 and/or available at www.ombudsman.parliament.nz or by freephone 0800 802 602.


Kind regards

Governance and Assurance Office

 

From: Privacy 
Sent: Monday, 8 June 2026 4:53 pm
To: editor@consumeraffairswriter.com
Subject: Request Acknowledgement: Request - Patient Consent Violations, Animal Ethics Committee Records & Regulatory Compliance: Harry Kelly (Admission November 30 / December 1, 2025)

 

Kia ora, Ms Kelly

 

We acknowledge receipt of your request, which due to its content we are acknowledging and processing as a privacy request. The reference number for your request is 15/2026.

 

If we have any questions or need to seek clarification on any part of your request, we will be in touch.

 

Otherwise, we will seek to respond to your request as soon as practicable and no later than 20 working days after the date your request was received (by 2 July 2026). If we are unable to respond to your request by then, we will notify you of an extension of this timeframe.

 

Kind regards

Governance and Assurance Office

 

From: editor@consumeraffairswriter.com <editor@consumeraffairswriter.com> 
Sent: Thursday, 4 June 2026 3:04 PM
To: OIA Requests <oia@massey.ac.nz>
Subject: Official Information Act Request - Patient Consent Violations, Animal Ethics Committee Records & Regulatory Compliance: Harry Kelly (Admission November 30 / December 1, 2025)

 

Context & Evidentiary Basis

 

This official statutory request is issued directly in relation to the documented clinical record of the private patient Harry Kelly, admitted to Massey University's Companion Animal Hospital on November 30 / December 1, 2025.

 

A comprehensive clinical and systemic analysis of the hospital's invoicing data, medical logs, and post-admission records has revealed an un-indicated medication cascade and severe over-sedation that did not align with any active neurological or structural brain pathology.

 

Under New Zealand statutory frameworks – including the Animal Welfare Act 1999, the Agricultural Compounds and Veterinary Medicines Act 1997, and the Veterinary Council of New Zealand Code of Professional Conduct – utilising a privately-owned animal for clinical demonstration, student training, or non-indicated pharmaceutical protocols outside of explicit therapeutic necessity crosses directly into regulated territory and requires both mandatory institutional oversight and owner consent.

 

The following core investigative records form the explicit evidentiary basis for this inquiry: (NB: These are part of a broader and even more comprehensive base of published documentation.)

 


Pursuant to the Official Information Act 1982, and referencing the investigative evidence linked above, Massey University is required to provide definitive answers to the following:

 

Informed Consent Protocol & Its Application by the CAH in the Harry Kelly Case

 

The exact operational protocol or Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) that governs the obtaining of specific, explicit, written owner consent for the use of a private patient in student teaching activities, clinical demonstrations, or video productions – distinct from and beyond any general teaching hospital disclosure clause contained in standard admission forms.

 

This request specifically includes whether Massey University's own protocols require additional specific consent where an owner has previously and repeatedly stated, verbally, in writing and on admission documentation, that their animal is not to be used as a teaching aid, training tool, or the subject of any student activity – as Harry Kelly's owner had documented and verbally stated on multiple prior occasions.

 

Please confirm whether any such specific consent was sought from, or provided by, Harry Kelly's owner for any student activity or video production conducted on, or with the use of, him during his November/December 2025 admission.

 

Animal Ethics Committee Registrations for Harry Kelly

 

All internal registry entries, meeting minutes, approvals, or project logs demonstrating whether Harry Kelly was at any time during his November/December 2025 admission registered, listed, or utilised as a live subject under an active Massey University Animal Ethics Committee (AEC) approved protocol for research, testing, teaching, or data collection.

 

Divergence from Clinical Necessity in Harry Kelly's Care

 

The specific institutional directive, clinical justification worksheet, or authorisation that legally permitted Companion Animal Hospital or ICU staff to transition Harry Kelly's medical management – including his documented sedation levels and drug administration cascades – away from direct therapeutic welfare and into a non-indicated clinical protocol without notifying or obtaining the consent of his owner.

 

IV Disconnection Authorisation for Harry Kelly

 

Whether the disconnection of Harry Kelly's IV rehydration fluids during his November/December 2025 admission was documented, clinically justified, and authorised by a supervising clinician – and if so, what clinical justification was recorded, who authorised it, and at what time it occurred relative to the documented sedation administrations.

 

Internal Audit, Review and Billing Records for Harry Kelly

 

All internal correspondence, emails, clinical review notes, handwritten meeting minutes, incident reports, or file notes held by the School of Veterinary Science, the Companion Animal Hospital Executive / Management or other parties, or individual ICU staff, regarding the specific drug administrations, medication discrepancies, over-sedation concerns, or invoicing codes applied to Harry Kelly in November/December 2025.

 

If no formal audit report exists, this request explicitly includes all informal communications, email strings, team debriefs, or draft reviews concerning these billing and clinical discrepancies.

 

Regulatory Breach and Risk Communications

 

All communications, emails, internal memos, legal counsel briefings, and risk-assessment notes exchanged within the University – including but not limited to the Veterinary School Executive / Management, the Companion Animal Hospital Clinical Director and Practice Manager, and University Risk and Legal teams – or with any external regulatory, statutory, or insurance bodies or the like, concerning potential, alleged, or established compliance breaches under the Animal Welfare Act 1999, the Agricultural Compounds and Veterinary Medicines Act 1997, or the VCNZ Code of Professional Conduct, or other legal concerns held, regarding the case file of Harry Kelly.

 

This request explicitly includes any internal correspondence discussing or reacting to the publisher's public exposures, Privacy Act and Official Information Act requests, or statutory (or intended statutory, for example those awaiting Massey’s / VCNZ’s release of clinician identities to enable) complaints regarding this matter.

 

I request a response within 20 working days as required by the Act.

 

Sincerely 
Jordan Kelly
Editor-in-Chief – The Customer & The Constituent,
www.thecustomer.co.nz 
Executive Director – International Institute for Improvement in Veterinary Ethics,
www.iiive.org 


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